Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SMETHWICK CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Thursday, 8th April.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order)

Considered.

Mr. Speaker: There are several Government Amendments. Does the Joint Under-Secretary wish to move them?

PREAMBLE

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): I beg to move, in page 1, line 1, to leave out the first "the" and to insert "a."
All the Amendments to page 1 are purely formal, and may be said to be consequent upon the proposed Amendment to the Schedule.

Mr. Speaker: If the House agrees, I will put all the Amendments together.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In line 1, leave out "set forth in the Schedule here-unto annexed," and insert "relating to Glasgow Corporation."

In line 5, leave out "requisite," and insert "expedient."

In line 5, after "should," insert "subject to amendment."—[Mr. T. Fraser.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Confirmation of Order in Schedule.)

Amendment made: In page 1, line 11, leave out "contained," and insert:
so made which as amended is set forth."—[Mr. T. Fraser.]

SCHEDULE

Amendment made: In page 15, leave out Clause 32.—[Mr. T. Fraser.]

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Waste Paper and Cardboard (Salvage)

Mr. Keeling: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in order to increase the supply of waste paper and cardboard saved for paper mills, he will arrange for a few prosecutions under existing by-laws of persons throwing paper and cardboard down in the streets and public parks.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): The by-laws to which the hon. Member refers are made by local authorities primarily to prevent litter, and I must leave any question of enforcement to them. I hope, however, that the public will co-operate in keeping paper and cartons for salvage purposes.

Mr. Keeling: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that, according to official estimates one million tons of paper and cardboard is thrown down in the streets every year and lost to the paper mills, and £2 million is spent in picking it up; and does he not think that too high a price to pay for freedom—freedom to make a mess?

Mr. Wilson: I agree that they are extremely high figures, and I hope that local authorities as well as the public will co-operate in the way the hon. Member suggests.

Mr. Keeling: Will not the right hon. Gentleman do something about it?

Wooden Houses (Exhibition, Munich)

Mr. Vane: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any representative of his Department visited the Export Exhibition in Munich in the autumn of 1947 to examine particulars of the several types of wooden houses on exhibition, with a view to seeing if they are suitable for erection in this country.

Mr. H. Wilson: A representative of my Department visited the Export Exhibition in Munich, but not specifically with a view to examining the suitability of German prefabricated houses for erection in this country, which is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. Particulars of the houses concerned were, however, passed to the responsible Department, but I understand that they were considered unsuitable.

Clothing Coupons

Mr. Osborne: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to cut the clothing coupons; and by how much will they be cut.

Mr. H. Wilson: As I warned the House on 27th January, when I announced the level of the clothing ration for the current period, if it should come to a choice for the next ration period between dollars and the home ration, we should have to reduce the ration rather than lose dollar earnings. No decision has, however, yet been made whether the ration will have to be reduced in the next period or can be maintained at the present level.

Mr. Osborne: Is the Minister aware that recently his Parliamentary Secretary said that unless cotton rayon and woollen outputs were greatly increased next year, the coupons would have to be cut severely; and will he give as much notice as possible?

Mr. Wilson: What my hon. Friend said—and I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to a speech made by him to the Retail Drapers' Association—was simply to repeat the warning which I gave to this House on 27th January. Certainly, we are keeping the thing very closely under review, and we should wish to make an announcement as soon as possible.

Mr. Sidney Shephard: Is the Minister aware that just over a year ago his Parliamentary Secretary said there was every

likelihood that the coupons would be increased?

Woollen Goods Trade

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he is aware that the shipping trade with New Zealand, Australia, Canada and South Africa in wool dress goods and woollen coatings is decreasing rapidly; and whether, in view of the fact that there are large stocks in Britain, he will reduce the coupon value of these goods for the benefit of home consumers;
(2) whether, in view of the fact that the accumulation of woollen goods has got so large that several hundred thousand coats and dresses were recently offered to buyers from the Ruhr at job prices, and that in view of the scarcity of coupons and the high coupon value people in Britain were unable to buy them, he will reduce all 54-inch goods made of wool of every description to three coupons a yard, and reduce them to 12 coupons for each garment of made-up goods.

Mr. H. Wilson: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to him on 5th February and to the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) on 10th February.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since those Questions were asked the situation has deteriorated? When will the right hon. Gentleman realise that the nationalisation—not nationalisation, but the State control—of these industries is ruining England?

Mr. Wilson: We have not nationalised the shops, the mills, or the industries producing these commodities.

Sir W. Smithers: I withdrew the word "nationalisation" and said "State control."

Sir W. Smithers: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the increase in the cost of wool, wages and coal has so increased costs of production in the woollen goods trade that exporters are finding it increasingly difficult to sell abroad; and what steps he proposes to take to remove this difficulty.

Mr. H. Wilson: I am aware that the costs of production of wool cloth have been increasing for some time past, but the principal factor has been the increase


in the price of raw wool, and this affects foreign producers equally. Other costs have increased by only about 5 per cent. in the past year. I have no reason to suppose that the wool industry is in general unable to meet foreign competition, but in any case I trust that the industry will press ahead with its efforts to achieve the maximum productive efficiency, which will be the surest method of maintaining its competitive position.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these Questions are based on facts? Is he also aware that if he breaks the law of supply and demand, that law will break him, the Government and the country?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir, I know that these Questions are based on fact. The facts are that the biggest increase in cost has been the price of raw wool, which is completely uncontrolled, and follows the law of supply and demand, with the price being dictated on the world market according to the pressure of demand from this country and other countries.

Mr. Osborne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the end of the war the British Government controlled the whole of the wool of the world, and that they have allowed it to be sold abroad at a cheaper price than it can be produced in our own industry?

Mr. Wilson: If hon. Members opposite are going to press me to re-impose control, I would naturally wish to give that careful consideration.

Mr. MacLeod: How much profit did the Government make from selling wool by public auction?

Mr. Wilson: I should want notice of that Question.

Film Studio Space

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of British studio space is at present unoccupied; and what steps he is taking to bring this into use.

Mr. H. Wilson: I take it that the hon. Member is referring to film studios. The unoccupied percentage of the stage space at British studios suitable for the production of first feature films is just over 8 per cent. The question as to what early steps can be taken to bring this space into use

is one which I hope to discuss next week at the first meeting of my Joint Council for the production section of the film industry. In consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am also exploring ways and means of affording improved access to finance for independent film producers.

Mr. Shepherd: Will the right hon. Gentleman, when he deals with that matter, also inquire into the extraordinary long time that films now occupy the floors of studios thereby holding up production and increasing costs?

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Member is quite right. I have already informed the House that one of the next things I want to look into is the general question of studio costs, which is closely bound up with this matter.

Cotton Textile Exports

Mr. Shepherd: asked the President of the Board of Trade the volume of cotton textile exports in 1947 as compared with 1937, after weighting, in respect of fine counts.

Mr. H. Wilson: The estimated volume of exports of cotton yarns and manufactures, other than apparel, in 1947 was 32 per cent. of that in 1937.

Mr. Shepherd: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider it a sad commentary on the actions of the Government that since the war we have only 32 per cent. of 1937 production?

Mr. Wilson: No, Sir, the cotton industry has taken a pretty long time to recover from the effects of concentration and the other measures applied during the war. We are looking to the industry for a much larger increase in 1948.

Cotton Buying Commission (Appointment)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the appointment of Mr. E. Hartley to the British Cotton Buying Commission was arranged through the Ministry of Labour.

Mr. H. Wilson: Under the Cotton (Centralised Buying) Act, 1947, such appointments are a matter for the Commission, and not for the Board of Trade.

Mr. Shepherd: Is it not a fact that the Paymaster-General gave an assurance to


the Liverpool Cotton Employees Association that this appointment would be made through the Ministry of Labour, and does he not consider, if the appointment was not made through the Ministry, that it was a breach of faith as far as the Association is concerned?

Mr. Wilson: I should require to look into the question of an assurance. It is the normal practice of the Commission to use the machinery of the Appointments Department of the Ministry of Labour.

Mr. Shepherd: Was it used in this instance?

Mr. Wilson: I have made inquiries into this matter. As I have said, it is a matter for the Commission. In this particular case, as in many others, it was a technical appointment, and they had to look to the technical people available.

Footwear Repairs (Charges)

Mr. Sidney Shephard: asked the President of the Board of Trade if, before issuing Statutory Instrument, 1948, No. 5, increasing the charges to be made by boot and shoe repairers, any consultation between his Department and the Incorporated National Federation of Boot Trades Association, Limited, took place.

Mr. H. Wilson: No, Sir. The Board of Trade were then instituting proceedings against the Association for inciting their members to contravene the current maximum price order.

Mr. Shephard: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the secretary of the Central Price Regulation Committee admitted that the Order was a bad one, and while it was in force shoe repairers would have to work at a loss? What steps is he taking to ensure that Orders issued from his Department in future are fair to all concerned?

Mr. Wilson: I have already explained some of the circumstances to the House. There was consultation with the Association at an earlier stage, and when the Order was amended, the various representations which had been made were taken into account.

Merchandise Marks Acts

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the President of the Board of Trade what

action his Department takes to ensure that the provisions of the Merchandise Marks Acts are subscribed to by traders and others responsible for the insertion of advertisements in the Press.

Mr. H. Wilson: Action is constantly being taken, thy publicity, explanation, advice, and warning, to ensure compliance with these requirements by traders and others. Where the public interest is involved, the Board are empowered to prosecute, and have done so on many occasions in the past. But it is open to any person to initiate proceedings for offences under the Merchandise Marks Acts, and we normally look to traders to watch their own interests in these matters. I shall be glad to consider any particular cases of contravention which my hon. Friend may bring to my notice.

Census of Production

Mr. Assheton: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has any statement to make with regard to complaints from firms in connection with the Census of Production now being carried out by his Department; and whether he realises that the length of the questionnaires impose an enormous burden on hard-pressed businesses.

Mr. H. Wilson: Most firms have completed, and returned without complaint, their 1946 Partial Census of Production schedules. Only a very small minority have, in spite of reminders, failed to send in their returns, and in some cases, have made comments on the length of the schedules. The questions are necessarily more numerous in schedules which cover many sections of a trade, but only a proportion need be answered by any one firm. I am satisfied that the work involved in completing the schedules is more than justified by the value of the information elicited.

Mr. Assheton: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there are several hundred questions to be answered by each firm? Does he really think that he has a staff which can analyse and make use of all the information with which he will be equipped when these questions have been answered?

Mr. Wilson: I have been through a lot of these forms myself. I think that some of the complaints about them have been grossly exaggerated. Certain of the


forms include 628 separate entries, but involve filling in no more than 10 entries in the case of any particular firm.

Mr. Assheton: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that all these questions have to be read through, and that the firm in question has to make up its mind whether or not it has to answer them which means an enormous amount of time is wasted?

Mr. Wilson: No, Sir, not when there are general headings indicating that blocks of questions do not apply to a particular industry.

Major Guy Lloyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that were it not for the fear of victimisation from the Board of Trade the remarks made by many firms would have been much stronger?

Major Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend realise that his action is fully endorsed in the Conservative Party's Industrial Charter?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Has it not been said that at least one of these forms was sent out in order to train the right hon. Gentleman's Department in the collection of statistics, and not to obtain information?

Token Imports

Mr. John Morrison: asked the President of the Board of Trade what will be the total value of imports this year under the token import scheme, and what return this country gets in each case for allowing such imports.

Mr. H. Wilson: I estimate that the total value of token imports in 1948 from the countries whose participation has so far been announced will be in the neighbourhood of £1.75 million. Token imports are accorded to these countries as part of mutually satisfactory trade arrangements which secure for the United Kingdom essential supplies of foodstuffs and raw materials, and entry into the overseas markets for our exports.

Women's Footwear (Sizes)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to state the result of his discussions with the shoe manufacturers in regard to producing women's shoes of more varied and larger sizes.

Mr. H. Wilson: I regret that the discussions referred to in my reply on 29th January have not yet been concluded. I will write to the hon. and gallant Member as soon as they are.

Sir T. Moore: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this is one of the most uncomfortable and unjustified trials which women have to bear—that is, wearing and queueing in ill-fitting shoes? Will he encourage and instruct manufacturers to follow the example of the American and Canadian manufacturers and produce shoes of varying widths and sizes?

Mr. Wilson: I am continually being requested by hon. Members opposite to instruct manufacturers on matters which have so far been regarded as matters for private trade arrangement. So far, we are hoping to be able to deal with these matters by way of encouragement.

Mr. Keeling: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the small-footed women of England will receive at least as much consideration as the large-footed women of Scotland?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while this matter is under consideration feet are still growing?

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider the remarks of the hon. Member for "Taggs Island" to be quite in order.

Wrapping Paper (Shops)

Mr. Daines: asked the President of the Board of Trade what measures he is taking to secure, economy in the use of paper for wrapping in the shops, in view of the shortage of paper for export packing, and other important purposes.

Mr. H. Wilson: I regret that it has been necessary to reduce considerably the allocations of paper for general wrapping purposes in the home market. I should be reluctant to re-introduce the wartime prohibition on the use of paper for retail wrapping, and I have decided instead to rely on the common sense and public spirit of everybody concerned. The trade associations have been consulted and will do their part. I appeal most strongly to the shops to use as little paper as possible


and to the public to accept this inconvenience in the present difficult circumstances, and to offer all the help they can.

Shirts

Mr. Albert Evans: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that shirts imported from Czechoslovakia are being retailed at 47s. each; and to what extent he controls the price and quality of these and other imported items of apparel.

Mr. H. Wilson: There is no control of the prices charged by the manufacturers of these shirts or of the quality of their products. But the maximum margins which can be taken by importers, wholesalers and retailers of imported items of apparel are statutorily prescribed.

Mr. Evans: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind the Government's policy of price control, and look into this matter?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir, but I have no control over the price of manufactured goods made in foreign countries.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Is the Minister aware that if there is a shortage of cheap Czechoslovak shirts, there appears to be no shortage of Czechoslovak shifts?

Sir Ronald Ross: Can the President of the Board of Trade assure the House that it will not be possible to sell Czechoslovak made shirts at a price which undercuts shirts made in this country at proper wages and under proper conditions?

Mr. Wilson: There has been no complaint of undercutting. All the complaints have been that the price of imported shirts has been far too high.

Mr. House: Is the Minister aware that shirts of no exceptional quality are being sold within a mile of this House at the apparently exorbitant price of £2 10s. each, and does he not think that there is useful ground there for inquiry and investigation?

Mr. Wilson: I would like my hon. Friend to let me have particulars.

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL AND POWER

Overseas Visitors (Petrol)

Mr. Gerald Williams: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what petrol he intends to allow to visitors from overseas during the summer months.

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power (1) whether he has now made a decision regarding the lifting of the ban on hired cars travelling more than 20 miles, in order to enable foreign visitors to be met at their port of entry and motored to their destination;
(2) whether he has now decided to increase the allowance of petrol for overseas visitors, and by what amount the allowance will be increased.

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is yet in a position to make a statement in regard to the lifting of the 20 miles restriction in the case of private hire cars engaged by American and other tourists from hard currency areas.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): I have agreed, in principle, with my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, that increased allowances should be made to overseas visitors who bring their cars with them or purchase cars in this country for subsequent export, and that special arrangements should be made to enable such visitors to use hire cars freely. The details are still under discussion with my right hon. Friend and also with the interests concerned.

Mr. Williams: Is the Minister aware that the sooner he arranges the details, the better, because these foreigners want to make their plans?

Mr. Gaitskell: The details are a little complicated, and we must have a little more time.

Mr. Molson: Will the Minister consider extending this concession to foreign visitors who cannot afford to bring their own cars or to buy cars in this country, and does he realise that in the case of visitors from hard currency countries their expenditure on petrol would be of substantial assistance to our exchequer?

Mr. Gaitskell: There are very great difficulties in preventing abuse in a system of that kind.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Will the Minister also consider the home user?

Mr. Gaitskell: That is another question.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Will the Minister arrange for the British Information Service in the United States to make this fact known as far as possible?

Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, Sir.

Captain John Crowder: When the Minister says that he will make it easier for foreigners to hire cars, will he give the people who hire out the cars more petrol, so that Britishers may hire cars when they want them?

Mr. Gaitskell: That is one of the matters under discussion.

Inspectorate

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many of the staff of his Ministry are employed as inspectors investigating the misuse of petrol by motorists.

Mr. Gaitskell: Eighty-four inspectors are employed on all forms of enforcement work—including the investigation of the misuse of petrol by motorists.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the Minister undertake, when he restores the basic petrol allowance, to get these people into productive work as soon as possible?

Mr. Gaitskell: I have already explained that they deal with all forms of enforcement work. Their number has not been increased since the abolition of the basic ration.

Supplementary Petrol Allowances

Mr. Heathcoat Amory: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, in order to permit people to get to their work in country districts with less delay, he will authorise petrol allowances for motor cycles for this purpose in all cases, whether public transport is available or not.

Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir. In present circumstances allowances cannot be granted

where alternative means of transport are reasonably practicable.

Mr. Amory: Will the Minister bear in mind that the motor cycle is extremely economical in the use of fuel, and its use makes a tremendous difference to people going to and from work in the time saved, and also saves public transport?

Mr. Gaitskell: The difference in saving between motor cycles and small cars is not nearly so great as the hon. Member seems to suggest.

Exhibition, Ministry's Stand

Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power why regulations were issued by his department preventing the use of the smallest electric motors at the "Daily Mail" Ideal Home Exhibition; and why the Ministry's stand, No. 78, broke the regulations, and had three electric motors permanently running, although the next door stand, the Petroleum Information Bureau, under private enterprise, was refused the use of electric motors.

Mr. Gaitskell: No regulations were issued by my Department about the use of small electric motors at this Exhibition. The second part of the Question does not therefore arise.

Sir G. Fox: Is the Minister aware that many exhibitors wanted permission to have electric motors on their stands, and were refused; and that the fact that this stand is the only one that has electric motors working is creating a bad impression and setting a bad example?

Mr. Gaitskell: What the organisers of the Exhibition may do about permitting or not permitting electric motors to be used is not my affair.

Sir G. Fox: Can the Minister say why his stand is the only one that has permission when no one else has got permission?

Mr. Gaitskell: I understand that they regard it as essential to the exhibit.

Sir G. Fox: rose——

Mr. Speaker: We cannot go on arguing this one point.

Sir G. Fox: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how much was spent on


the Ministry's stand, No. 78, at the Ideal Home Exhibition; and why, at 12.30 p.m., on 4th March, no attendant was present to explain the purpose of the stand, which was not apparent.

Mr. Gaitskell: The total cost of this stand was approximately £5,500, of which £2,000 was for site hire and £3,500 for design, construction and erecting. With regard to the second part of the Question, a Commissionaire is always on duty at the stand, and a member of the Ministry's staff is in occasional attendance. I should have thought that the purpose of the exhibit, which is to indicate the relative consumptions of various types of domestic electricity appliance, was made abundantly clear by the explanatory captions.

Sir G. Fox: Is the Minister aware that this is the only stand in the exhibition that does not permanently have an attendant on it?

Hire Cars (Radius Restriction)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether hire-car firms are permitted to undertake journeys in excess of 20 miles in cases where definite arrangements for these journeys had been made prior to the publication of S.I. No. 386 of 1948.

Mr. Gaitskell: Regional petroleum officers have been instructed to grant licences for journeys up to 31st March where they are satisfied that definite arrangements were made for the journey before 1st March.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Would if not have prevented confusion in this matter if some such provision had been incorporated in the Order?

Mr. Marlowe: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that he gave me a written answer last week in which he said that no estimate could be made of the saving of petrol? Is it a fact that no petrol will be saved? Is this another order made on psychological grounds?

Mr. Gaitskell: In saying that no estimate could be made, I did not mean that there would be no saving. There will be some saving, but it is impossible to say what it will be.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

Firewood Logs, Lancashire (Purchases)

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware that the National Coal Board has been making purchases of firewood logs in the Lancashire area at prices above the controlled prices; and what steps he is taking to enforce his order.

Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, Sir. The acquisition of supplies of wood fuel at more than controlled prices is not an offence under this Order, but the general question of the enforcement of the Order is under consideration.

Mr. Vane: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is an extremely bad example, whether the National Coal Board can get round the Order or not, to pay about double the controlled price for firewood logs?

Mr. Gaitskell: I would not accept the figure given by the hon. Member, but the National Coal Board have expressed their regret to me. One of the difficulties about the Order is that those who buy the fuel do not know whether the regulations are being broken or not.

Mr. De la Bère: What a confession.

Coal-Cutters and Conveyors

Colonel Ropner: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what is the number of coal-cutting machines and the number of conveyers in use in the mines of Great Britain during 1947 and how this number compares with 1946.

Mr. Gaitskell: The annual return showing the number of coal-cutters and conveyors in use in 1947 is not yet available. The figures for Great Britain for the week ending 14th December, 1946, were: coalcutters—7,376, conveyors—10,966. These figures may be compared with 7,121 coal-cutters and 9,658 conveyors in use at the corresponding date in 1945.

Accident Statistics

Colonel Ropner: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will state the number of accidents, fatal and nonfatal to persons employed below ground


during 1947 and the causes of the accidents and the separate figures for West and South Yorkshire, respectively.

Mr. Gaitskell: As the answer contains a statistical table, I will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

NUMBER OF PERSONS KILLED AND INJURED UNDERGROUND IN MINES.* 1947 (Provisional).


Cause of Accident.
South Yorkshire.
West Yorkshire.
Great Britain.


Killed.
Seriously injured.†
Injured and disabled for more than 3 days.
Killed.
Seriously injured. †
Injured and disabled for more than 3 days.
Killed.
Seriously injured. †
Injured and disabled for more than 3 days.


Explosions of firedamp or coal dust.
9
20
Not available
12
1
Not available.
168
79
Not available.


Falls of ground
28
134
12
70
233
961


Shaft accidents
—
2
1
2
19
26


Haulage accidents
14
82
9
46
111
598


Miscellaneous accidents
3
50
1
18
51
518


Total underground
54
288
35
137
582
2,182

1946.


Explosions of firedamp or coal dust.
—
1
1
—
—
—
24
46
43


Falls of ground
26
136
7,634
25
61
3,363
277
1,016
52,368


Shaft accidents
—
4
19
1
1
19
11
24
231


Haulage accidents
14
68
4,713
5
34
2,077
136
524
36,491


Miscellaneous accidents
5
39
9,846
1
25
3,221
45
514
61,298


Total underground
45
248
22,218
32
121
8,680
493
2,124
150,431


* The figures relate to all mines as defined in the Coal Mines Act, 1911.


† By serious injuries is meant injuries which, because of their severity or the nature of the accident, are required (under the terms of Section So of the Coal Mines Act, 1911) to be reported to His Majesty's Divisional Inspectors of Mines at the time of their occurrence. In practically every case, these accidents involve a period of disablement of more than three clays and such accidents are included in the figures of persons "injured and disabled for more than three days."

Anthracite Supplies, Crediton

Mr. Lambert: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that there is insufficient anthracite in Crediton to meet the ration; and will he take steps to increase supply of anthracite.

Mr. Gaitskell: There is no guaranteed ration of anthracite, but I have taken steps to increase supplies at Crediton, where the demand has recently increased considerably with the result that a temporary shortage has occurred.

Following is the information:

Complete information about the number of accidents to persons employed below ground is not yet available for 1947. The following table gives the information at present available for that year, and also complete information for 1946:

Bunker Coal (Price)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he has considered a resolution sent to him from the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom, deploring the recent increase in price in bunker coal and the continued rise in the price of oil fuel; and what steps he proposes to take as a consequence.

Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, Sir. As I have stated on a previous occasion the Government regard the price of bunker coal as


a matter for determination by the National Coal Board in the light of commercial considerations. The price of oil fuel has risen because of a general increase in world oil prices over which I have no control.

Mr. Osborne: Will the Minister bear in mind that the cost of transport enters into our export costs, and if he can keep down the cost of bunker coal it will help us?

Mr. Gaitskell: I appreciate the point.

Mr. Assheton: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how many times the cost of bunker coal has risen since before the war?

Mr. Gaitskell: Not without notice.

Registration

Mr. Shephard: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will now remove the control which prohibits a person changing his or her coal merchant.

Mr. Gaitskell: The possibility of removing this control is being constantly considered, but I regret that it is not yet practicable to do so.

Mr. Shephard: Is the Minister aware that in cases where a dishonest coal merchant has given short weight the customer is still not able to change his merchant? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear that point in mind and reconsider the whole matter?

Mr. Gaitskell: It is possible for a consumer to change his merchant, with the permission of the local fuel overseer. If the hon. Member has any particular case in mind I should be glad to look into it.

Mr. Shephard: A case was reported in the Press last week.

Major Bruce: Would my right hon. Friend try to control this regrettable manifestation of private enterprise?

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC SITUATION (BROADCASTS)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Prime Minister if he will consider arranging a series of non-party B.B.C. broadcasts by leaders of the main political parties to concentrate the nation's attention on the realities of our desperate economic position and to call for the extra 10 per cent.

production which is needed to save us from further cuts in food and other basic necessities.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I am glad to say that the B.B.C. is already devoting much time to programmes calling attention to the gravity of our economic position and the need for extra production. I am not certain that the method suggested would be the most effective way of achieving the object which the hon. Member has in mind.

Mr. Osborne: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's appeal on the wireless on the economic situation could be emphasised and strengthened if Members of other parties gave similar support?

The Prime Minister: I am always very glad to have support on these matters from Members of other parties.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE AND PENSIONS (MINISTRIES)

Mr. Piratin: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the similarity of the work undertaken by the Ministries of National Insurance and of Pensions, he will consider taking steps to merging the two Ministries, in order to effect an improvement in executive uniformity and efficiency, and a saving of manpower.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. It would be wrong to add at this time to the heavy task before the Ministry of National Insurance.

Mr. Piratin: Perhaps the Prime Minister would reconsider his answer and take his time over it, because there would be quite a saving in manpower as these Ministries merged more and more into each other?

The Prime Minister: I do not need to take time over it, because I think that this is not the right time.

Oral Answers to Questions — STATE SERVICES (EFFICIENCY SUGGESTIONS)

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Prime Minister whether, in order to stimulate interest in our national recovery, he will cause to be set up a central office for


obtaining and dealing with ideas and suggestions for greater efficiency from all public servants, employees of nationalised industry and members of the Armed Forces, with a system of awards for those ideas which are considered to be to the national advantage.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. No further machinery is required. Machinery for considering suggestions, and making awards where appropriate, already exists in the Civil Service. There are also special arrangements for members of the Armed Forces. There is provision in the legislation setting up the nationalised industries for the Boards to establish whatever machinery they consider necessary for considering suggestions by their employees for promoting efficiency in those industries.

Mr. Bartlett: Is not the Prime Minister aware that according to the Organisation and Methods Division of the Treasury three-quarters of the Government Departments have no real suggestion schemes in operation; and is he aware that the American War Department claim to have paid in the last four years more than £40 million through a similar scheme? Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter again, because his own Treasury document completely contradicts what he has said?

The Prime Minister: It does not completely contradict it. Many Departments already have schemes and others have them under consideration. The matter is receiving attention. That is the best way of doing it.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

Doctors (Registration Forms)

Mr. Somerville Hastings: asked the Lord President of the Council if he is aware of the long delay in the issue of registration forms for doctors under the General Practitioners and Pharmacists Act, 1947; and when he anticipates that these forms will be ready for distribution.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I have been asked to reply. This is a matter for the General Medical Council, and I understand that in the case of the great majority of doctors who

have expressed an intention of applying for registration under the Act the necessary forms were despatched by the end of last month.

Mr. Hastings: Does my right hon. Friend realise that there are some doctors who have served in our own Forces and who gave valuable services to their country and have been waiting for a year to get employment in this country?

Mr. Bevan: That question hardly arises out of the original Question, because the Act was not passed until 18th December last, and it took some time to get the forms printed. A number of forms was necessary, and the forms are now going out at a considerable rate. If my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind I shall certainly look into it, because I am exceedingly anxious that these men should have justice done to them as speedily as possible.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: With regard to the young doctor who has recently been demobilised, does he wait until the form is sent to him or does he apply for it, and to whom does he apply?

Mr. Bevan: I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member is referring to the doctor concerned under this Act. He can, of course, apply to me or to the General Medical Council.

Mr. Hastings: Do I understand from my right hon. Friend's answer that the forms have now gone out to all those who applied for them?

Mr. Bevan: Yes. I said that in the great majority of cases in which doctors have applied, the forms were despatched before the end of last month.

Hospitals

Mr. Linstead: asked the Minister of Health approximately how many hospitals have not yet been told whether or not they are to be taken over by the Minister on 5th July; and whether he will say by what date they will all be informed.

Mr. Bevan: I have advised all hospitals which appear to me liable to be taken over. I am now deciding, with the help of the regional boards, which hospitals it would be proper to disclaim.

Oral Answers to Questions — CATERING WAGES BOARD

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Labour whether any decision has been reached by the Catering Wages Board for the licensed non-residential establishments.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): Orders giving effect to proposals by the licensed Non-Residential Establishment Wages Board in respect of workers other than managers of public houses and club stewards were made by me on 31st December, 1946, and 22nd December, 1947. No further proposals have been submitted to me by the Board.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great dissatisfaction among managers and club stewards that their demands have not yet been met whereas those of other employees have?

Mr. Isaacs: That may be, but I have no evidence or information about it. I understand that the Board is to meet very shortly, I believe in a few days.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Chief Economic Information Officer

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when it is intended to terminate the appointment of Mr. S. C. Leslie as Chief Economic Information Officer.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): There is no question of terminating this appointment at the present time.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on 23rd June his right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council sought to justify the payment to this gentleman of the same salary as that paid to the head of the Civil Service on the grounds that it was a purely temporary appointment, and how permanent does an appointment have to become before it ceases to be temporary?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It becomes permanent when it is made permanent, and that has not been done.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Is the Financial Secretary aware that the figure at which this particular gentleman has been

appointed, which is entirely outside the scale of standards of remuneration given even for highly placed civil servants, has caused a great deal of dissatisfaction throughout the whole range of the upper Civil Service, and will he bear that in mind?

National Income (Expenditure)

Major Bruce: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state, in extension of the particulars set out in Table 14 of Cmd. 6707 of December, 1945, the percentages of the national income expended for each of the years 1945, 1946 and 1947, on war, consumption, and net non-war capital formation at home and abroad, respectively.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): As the answer contains a number of figures in tabular form, I will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The following table is made up of figures already published in Table 2 of Cmd. 7099 and Table XXIII of Cmd. 7344.


USE OF THE NATIONAL INCOME.


—
1945.
1946.
1947. Provisional.



Per cent.
Per cent.
Per cent.


Current expenditure—





Personalconsumption
57
68
70


Government
52
28
24


Additions to assets—





Net capital formation at home
1
9
14


External investment
-10
-5
-8



100
100
100

Consumer Goods

Major Bruce: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the value of consumer goods purchased in the United Kingdom at 1938 prices per head of the population for the years 1945, 1946 and 1947, respectively.

Mr. Jay: The value of personal expenditure on consumers' goods and services at 1938 prices was estimated, in table 26 of Cmd. 7099, at £3,938 millions and £4,296 millions in 1945 and 1946, respectively. A comparable figure for 1947 is


not yet available, but will be published in the next White Paper on national income and expenditure.

Major Bruce: Can my hon. Friend say when that White Paper will be published?

Mr. Jay: It is usually published at the time of the Budget.

Purchase Tax

Group Captain Wilcock: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the abuse that is occurring in the printing trade as a result of purchase tax being charged only by those printers whose annual turnover is over £500 of taxable printing; and whether he will take steps to adjust this.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The position is not such at the present time as to warrant the drastic step of abolishing the £500 exemption limit, but the matter will be kept under review.

Group-Captain Wilcock: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the small printer is at a very great advantage and that he is undercutting the larger printer, which is causing very much dissatisfaction, because the larger printer usually employs trade union men?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: There is no very real grievance if what my hon. and gallant Friend says is, in fact, true. But if the limit were lowered, it would cause great difficulty to a large number of small people and we should need a large staff to collect the tax.

Mr. Charles Williams: Arising out of the original answer, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that most people on this side of the House wish to give the advantage to the small man?

Death Duties (Treasury Stock)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take powers in the next Finance Bill to accept 1946 Treasury 2½ per cent. stock at par for Death Duties where the holders of 3 per cent. local loans accepted this stock on conversion on the strength of the former Chancellor's expressed determination that Government stock would be on a 2½ per cent. basis, since when a 3 per cent. Transport stock is being issued and the Treasury 2½ per cent. has fallen to 80.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir.

Mr. Lipson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a reason for this refusal?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: There are a very large number of reasons. The question is simply riddled with fallacies, and if I spent the time of the House in answering them all now it would take up considerable time. If the hon. Gentleman cares to see me afterwards, I will give them to him then.

Mr. Assheton: Would the right hon. Gentleman in future try to avoid putting out a stock from the Treasury which falls 22 points in a very short time?

Mr. Gallacher: Would not the Minister consider reverting to the previous policy, which would be more convenient and give greater satisfaction to the local authority?

Sir Frank Sanderson: Would the Minister consider allowing the original subscribers to this 2½ per cent. loan to use it for the purpose of Death Duties since they have already lost 20 per cent. of their investment?

Mr. G. Williams: Will not the Financial Secretary simply say that it is undesirable that the Chancellor should make such misleading statements which involve the public in great financial losses?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It is not true to say that the Chancellor made any such offers or any such promises.

Mr. De la Bère: The whole thing is thoroughly unsatisfactory.

Co-operative Movement (Price Reductions)

Mr. Piratin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the letter sent to him from the national co-operative authority stating that the cooperative movement is working out a schedule of price reductions which they will voluntarily introduce; and what answer he has given.

Mr. Jay: My right hon. and learned Friend was very glad to receive the letter from the Parliamentary Committee of the Co-operative Congress promising reduction in the prices of a number of commodities, and he has replied expressing his appreciation of the Congress's action.

Mr. Piratin: I should like to ask my hon. Friend, first, whether he proposes to take any steps to encourage other traders to follow this example; and, secondly, whether he will ensure through his colleagues a greater distribution of goods for the co-operative societies so that they may reduce prices to the consumer?

Mr. Jay: The co-operative movement have given a very fine lead in this matter, and we must wait to see if the other parts of industry will follow it.

Statutory Instrument 386 (Publication)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary to the Treasury why Statutory Instrument 386 of 1948, which purports to have been presented on 26th February, 1948, and to come into operation on 1st March, 1948, was not available in the Vote Office on 5th March.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The Instrument was published and on sale on 1st March, but by a regrettable breakdown of the usual machinery for delivery it was not available in the Vote Office until the hon. Member's Question called attention to the omission, for which I apologise to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE

Police Constable Edgar (Widow's Pension)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what will be the total sum receivable by way of pension and children's allowances by the widow of police constable Edgar recently killed in the execution of his duty.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a Question by the hon. and gallant Member for Finchley (Captain Crowder) on 23rd February.

Mr. Brown: May I ask that, as soon as the Police Pension Bill has gone through its stages in the other House, the Police Council should be asked to advise about making provision in cases of this kind, and that early consideration will be given to more generous provision and as early as possible?

Mr. Ede: I intend to treat this case, and similar cases, as matters of urgency, as soon as I have the powers.

Meeting, Hammersmith

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police were employed on the evening of the 20th February in preventing people from entering a Hammersmith public house, out of which customers had been turned to make way for a meeting attended by Sir Oswald Mosley.

Mr. Ede: None, Sir. The report in a newspaper to the effect suggested in the Question is without foundation. No such incident occurred.

Pensioners (Re-employment)

Mr. J. Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether in view of the shortage of metropolitan police he will consider the temporary employment of police pensioners in stations and stores so as to release younger men for street duty.

Mr. Ede: A number of re-engaged police pensioners, war-disabled men and civilian women clerks are already employed to release able-bodied men for street duties.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONS (EDUCATION ARRANGEMENTS)

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the arrangements for giving education to persons serving sentences in His Majesty's prisons; by whom is such education given; what are the subjects taught; and in view of the fact that the pupils are in prison on account of crimes committed by them, whether character training forms part of the curriculum.

Mr. Ede: At some prisons, including most of those used as training centres and centres for young prisoners, the local education authority arranges classes and supplies the teachers, and in others, despite the handicaps of overcrowding and under-staffing, classes are taken by voluntary teachers and members of the prison staff. The curriculum varies from prison to prison, and covers a variety of subjects. In addition, over 400 prisoners


take correspondence courses. The educational curriculum forms part of the general training system of which character training is one of the primary aims.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Should not training invariably be compulsory in education given in prison, in view of the fact that reformation is one of the objects of sending people to prison?

Mr. Ede: I believe that character training should be at the basis of all teaching but, as a teacher, I know how difficult it is to make it compulsory.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is it possible for my right hon. Friend to consider allowing some of the prisoners themselves to take teaching classes?

Mr. Ede: I understand that on technical subjects the abilities of prisoners are used, but prisoners are not regarded as the best persons to give character training.

Mr. Edward Evans: Would my right hon. Friend indicate how it is possible to apply a direct method of character training? Does not character training grow out of the curriculum?

Mr. Ede: My hon. Friend and I are both teachers. I would object to giving a lecture upon pedagogy to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM (COST)

Mr. Bossom: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost, both locally and nationally, of maintaining the fire protection system in 1938, before the enlarged personnel scheme was introduced; and if the losses due to fire have decreased or increased since the enlargement.

Mr. Ede: There was no Exchequer grant in aid of the cost of fire brigades in 1938 and I regret that statistics of the cost to local authorities are not available. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. H. D. Hughes) on 16th December last.

Mr. Bossom: As there is a great need for money in the country at the present time and a great need for manpower, would the right hon. Gentleman look into

the situation and see that neither of those very important elements are being wasted?

Mr. Ede: I have this matter constantly under review. I am reviewing the establishments of the fire brigades as soon as possible after the new system has been inaugurated.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Powderhall Camp, Cardiff

Mr. George Thomas: asked the Minister of Health what representations have been made to the Welsh Board of Health by the Cardiff City Council in connection with the Powderhall Camp, Cardiff; and why his Department has expressed opposition to improvements being made in the housing accommodation of that camp.

Mr. Bevan: There have been consultations from time to time between the Welsh Board of Health and the Cardiff Corporation. All proposals submitted have been approved. The second part of the Question does not therefore arise.

Mr. Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that very considerable interest has been aroused in Cardiff by a statement made in the city council that four children lost their lives because of the conditions at this camp? Whilst I welcome his assurance that the Ministry of Health granted the conditions required, will my right hon. Friend take steps to inquire into the present conditions of camps?

Mr. Bevan: Certainly I will take steps to inquire into the grounds of the allegation. It must not be taken for granted that what individual councillors say is necessarily more correct than what we say in this House.

Rent Restriction

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of hardships imposed on many small property owners in humble circumstances, he will consider amending the Rent Restriction Acts, to bring the rentals charged into relation with the present costs of maintenance and so put private owners in the same position as local authorities who may so increase rentals.

Mr. Bevan: I can hold out no prospect of early legislation to effect the amendment of the Rent Restriction Acts.

Mr. Skinnard: In view of the fact that many people in comparatively humble circumstances, before the more generous pension position of today, made provision for their families' future by acquiring small properties, and in view of the discrimination between this type of owner and local authorities, will my right hon. Friend look into this matter again?

Mr. Bevan: There are quite a number of anomalies arising out of the Rent Restrictions Acts, but I can hold out no prospect of immediate legislation.

Captain Crowder: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the very heavy cost of repairs which makes it impossible for anyone who has to keep in good repair a number of cottages to carry out their duty by the tenants?

Mr. James Hudson: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account that many people will look upon it as a disaster to have their rents raised at a time when prices are being kept down?

Colonel Clarke: asked the Minister of Health if he will consider granting to housing societies the same facilities for increasing rents as are at present granted to local authorities.

Mr. Bevan: The point will be borne in mind when it is possible to consider comprehensive legislation dealing with rent restriction.

Colonel Clarke: Will the Minister bear in mind that these housing societies operate as non-profit making businesses to provide houses to let and that they provide efficient management for their tenants as well as a house, and that many of them will have to close down unless they can be given this facility, because they cannot make ends meet?

Mr. Bevan: All these facts will be taken into account when legislation is being framed.

Mr. Channon: asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider setting up a technical committee on the lines recommended by the Ridley Report on Rent Restriction to inquire and report on the cost of repairs and the burdens imposed on many owners of small property for whom the cost of repairs often exceeds the rent they obtain.

Mr. Bevan: No, Sir. The appointment of a technical committee at this stage was

not part of the Ridley Committee's proposals.

Building Licence Application, Litchborough

Mr. Manningham-Buller: asked the Minister of Health whether he will authorise the granting of a licence to Mr. J. Atlee of Litchborough, Northamptonshire, to erect a small bungalow upon his smallholding.

Mr. Bevan: No, Sir. I understand that the county agricultural executive committee do not support the application.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Mr. Atlee has not occupied a tied house but lives with his aged mother and small child in a converted hen house, and that this application is strongly supported by the local authority?

Mr. Bevan: The county agricultural executive committee do not support it. Where they have supported applications of this sort I have given permission for it to be done, but in these circumstances I cannot do so without giving permission for a large number of similar applications in the rest of the country, which would then cause that unbalance of the housing programme about which hon. Members are often so eloquent.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: May I take it from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that if the county agricultural executive committee reconsider their decision a licence may be granted?

Mr. Bevan: When the county agricultural executive committee have reconsidered their decision, I shall reconsider the application.

Mr. Butcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to bring to his attention a case where he refused permission although the application was supported by the county agricultural executive committee?

Mr. Bevan: That might indeed happen.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREATER LONDON WATER SUPPLIES (REPORT)

Sir G. Fox: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that negotiations for the amalgamation of some


undertakings under the provisions of the Water Act, 1945, are unable to proceed pending the report of the departmental committee on Greater London Water Supplies; and when it is anticipated that the report of this committee will be made.

Mr. Bevan: Yes, Sir. I expect to receive the report of the Departmental Committee shortly.

Sir G. Fox: Does the Minister mean by "shortly," next week?

Mr. Bevan: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — BIRTH CERTIFICATES

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that some parents, whose children have been born in wedlock, have been advised by registrars not to apply for the shortened form of birth certificate because of the risk of such children being deemed illegitimate, if he will take immediate steps to prevent any such stigma being cast on such certificates and arrange that remuneration of registrars is no longer allowed to depend on the number of certificates of birth issued by them.

Mr. Bevan: No such stigma should attach to the short certificates because in fact they are being issued in respect of legitimate as well illegitimate persons. No registrar ought to discourage the public from obtaining the short certificate and the Registrar-General is issuing further instructions to dispel any misapprehension there may be on this point.

Mr. Piratin: Is there any reason for retaining the old, long certificate?

Mr. Bevan: Yes, Sir. It was explained when I spoke on the Bill that there are reasons why it is necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — BECHUANALAND (HEREROS)

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he is aware that the Paramount Chief of the Hereros, now in Bechuanaland, has been informed by the administrative powers that there is insufficient land available in South-West Africa to absorb the Hereros from Bechuanaland; and what action is being taken to assist these people to return to their homeland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Gordon-Walker): Yes, Sir. There are, as my hon. Friend is aware, about 15,000 Hereros in the Bechuanaland Protectorate. Their Chief recently asked the High Commissioner to inquire of the Government of the Union of South Africa whether they could return to their native country. The Government of the Union replied that there is not enough land to absorb them. In view of this reply, the question of action by the Administration of Bechuanaland does not arise.

Mr. Skinnard: Is it not unfortunate in the circumstances that this might be connected with the recent assumption of control over South-West Africa by the Union of South Africa?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: It would not be for me to say what are the motives in the mind of the Government of the Union. It is for them to say.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTHERN RHODESIA

Railway Rolling Stock

Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what steps are being taken to overcome the shortage of railway trucks in the Southern Rhodesian Railways.

Mr. Gordon-Walker: The Rhodesian Railways have placed substantial orders for railway rolling stock in the United Kingdom. Some of these orders were completed in 1947; and every effort is being made to complete the remainder as soon as possible.

Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: Is any effort being made to send redundant stock from here which could be repaired and adapted by small boat repairers such as those in Great Yarmouth who are now faced by a recession in their work?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: I do not think that any request of that sort has been made by the Government of Southern Rhodesia. We would consider it if it were.

Chrome Ore (Stocks)

Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what information he has about the stock pile of chrome ore of about 500,000 tons at the Selukwe mines in Southern Rhodesia.

Mr. Gordon-Walker: I have not at present the information asked for but I am making inquiries and I will communicate with the hon. and gallant Member as soon as possible.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Churchill: May I ask the Lord President of the Council and the Leader of the House whether he has any statement to make on the Business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir.
Monday, 15th March.—Supply (9th Allotted Day) Report. Votes A of the Navy, Army and Air will be considered. At 9.30 p.m. the Question will be put from the Chair on the Vote under discussion and on all outstanding Estimates, Supplementary Estimates and Excess Votes required before the end of the Financial Year. Committee stage of the Palestine [Money] Resolution and Motion to approve the Draft Cotton Industry Development Order, 1948.
Tuesday and Wednesday, 16th and 17th March.—We shall begin the Committee stage of the Representation of the People Bill.
Thursday, 18th March.—Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill. A Debate will take place on manpower.
Friday, 19th March.—Further progress will be made with the Palestine Bill. The Government hope that it will be agreeable to the House to pass the Bill through all its remaining stages.
It may be convenient if I inform the House that it is proposed to adjourn for the Easter Recess on Thursday, 25th March, and meet again on Tuesday, 6th April. Also, that on Tuesday, 6th April, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget.
As the House is aware, the Economic Survey for 1948 was made available as a White Paper on Tuesday. Hon. Members will doubtless require ample time to consider this very important document which is bound to form the background of the Budget Debates. In view of the near approach of the Easter Recess and of Budget Day, the Government wish to suggest to the House that the Debate on

the White Paper should, as a matter of experiment this year, be taken with the Budget discussions. We make this suggestion for the reasons which I have given, and if, as I hope, it will be agreeable to the House, the actual arrangements for the Debate should perhaps be discussed through the usual channels. Usually the Committee stage of the Budget Resolutions occupies three days, but in the exceptional circumstances this year it may be found desirable to extend this period by giving some extra time so that the House will have full opportunity of considering my right hon. Friend's Budget proposals and the present economic situation.

Mr. Churchill: I do not like the expression which the Leader of the House has used that "it may be found desirable to extend this period by giving some extra time" on the Budget Debate. The Budget Debate usually lasts three days on the general topic, and to add another couple of days would make a very discursive Debate spreading over five whole days. I cannot think that would be a convenient method of probing the difficult topics with which we have to deal. I must put it to the Leader of the House that the Government have taken, of their own free will and in the management of their business, the exceptional step of issuing this "Black Paper" a fortnight before the Budget, and it seems to me that they have by so doing raised a very considerable issue and that we ought to have the opportunity of debating it before Easter on a separate Motion for two days. However, I quite recognise that it is difficult to judge the doctors when the disease alone is before one without hearing what their remedies may be, and I should be quite willing, on behalf of those who sit on this side, to discuss proposals for a discussion of this matter at the time of the Budget discussions and after we have heard what the Budget of the year is. But that must surely be a separate Debate of at least two days—entirely separate from the ordinary discussions of the Budget and enabling the Whole House to take part again in that Debate even if they have spoken in the previous financial discussion. Therefore, I ask him whether he will elaborate his phrase, "It may be found desirable to extend this period," and give us an assurance across the Floor


of the House that, in addition to the normal time allotted to the general Budget discussions, there will be two days for the discussion of the Economic White Paper as a separate Debate, and that this can be arranged through the usual channels?

Mr. Morrison: I was rather apprehensive about the right hon. Gentleman at the beginning, but he got rather nearer to us at the end. It is, of course, the case—there is no deliberate plot about it—that, as it happens, the White Paper has appeared in the House pretty near to the Budget occasion. It is a longish document and hon. Members will want to study it with great care and, indeed, hear the reaction in the country about it before the Debate. Therefore, it seems that inevitably we are driven to take that Debate about the time of the Budget. I do not ask anybody to commit themselves at this stage; I am only thinking about the general convenience of the House. It has been the case, when we have been having economic Debates as distinct from Budget Debates, that hon. Members have sometimes said, "It is really difficult to argue about this unless we get into the field of budgetary proposals," whereupon the Chancellor used to say, "I cannot anticipate my Budget statement." On the other hand, on the purely budgetary Debates, it is a little artificial to keep clear of these wider economic issues, and I only put it to the House that, as an experiment, there is a great deal to be said for interlocking the two subjects. The Chancellor himself, who now discharges the normal functions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer plus the functions of Minister for Economic Affairs, in his opening speech will inevitably go wide and deal with the White Paper as well as with the narrow budgetary proposals, and I think the House would be cramped in its Debate unless hon. Members could also go wide. Having said that, I ask the Opposition to think about it, and we shall certainly be prepared to discuss it through the usual channels.

Mr. Churchill: I want more than that. This is really not good enough. A Paper of the utmost gravity has been presented to the nation by the Government, managing their own business in their own way, which they have a perfect right to do. They have presented it, and we have a

right to discuss that grave Paper. We are perfectly prepared to waive that right and not to press for a discussion before Easter, if it is understood that there will be two days after Easter in reasonable relation to the Budget, so that those who speak about the economic situation may also know the financial proposals which the Government have to make to remedy it. I ask the right hon. Gentleman: can we take it as agreed, as I certainly thought it was agreed through the usual channels, that there will be a two days' Debate, separate from the Budget but cognate to it, when we come back after Easter?

Mr. Bowles: Before my right hon. Friend replies to that question may I put this point? The Budget discussion will take place in Committee of Ways and Means, which is a Committee for raising money and not spending it. The discussion on the White Paper may be out of Order, I submit with respect, because it might involve questions about economy, and questions of expenditure also will be dealt with.

Mr. Morrison: It is quite clear that in a Debate on the Budget, hon. Members can discuss reductions of expenditure—[An HON. MEMBER: "No."] On the original Budget Debate we certainly cover that. One of the purposes of the Budget used to be to denounce Governments for spending too much money as well as to consider the ways in which it proposed to raise the money. I would ask the House to forgive me if I cannot he final upon this point at this moment. I must consider the reactions of the House as a whole, and I really believe that if hon. Members reflect upon this, that if we have a watertight Budget Debate—after the Chancellor has gone wide, remember, and then a watertight economic affairs Debate—when we know that the two things react upon each other and are interlocked, we shall get into trouble. However, if I find the general opinion of the House is that that is how it is wanted, certainly we will be prepared to give that favourable consideration, but I ask that this should be the subject of discussion, and not the subject of final settlement across the Floor this afternoon.

Mr. Churchill: There is no doubt about giving the two extra days; the only question is whether we have them before Easter and before the Budget, or whether


we should have them at a separate time from the Budget after Easter. I am not suggesting for a moment that either of these Debates should be completely watertight—obviously they cover the same ground—but it would be a great mistake to have a five days' Debate wandering over the whole field, without some attempt to focus the issues. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to give an assurance on this matter. I did not understand that there was a difficulty about it. I thought that it would be for the general convenience of the House; but at any rate, unless and until he tells us that we can have two separate days as a distinct Debate after Easter, we must press the demand that this black—White Paper shall be discussed before we separate.

Mr. Morrison: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is so subconsciously influenced about the colour of the Paper by the Beaverbrook Press, but I urge him again to let us talk about it and see what is the best way out of it. If the Debate is cut in two, the other will have to follow immediately after the Budget Debate. Let us talk about it, and let hon. Members reflect on it. I am only apprehensive that, when it comes to the point, they may be exceedingly sorry if we have been too rigid. Let us talk about it, and we will be accommodating.

Mr. Churchill: I thought we had talked about it, but I am agreeable to that. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman next week will give his final decision and let us know the answer?

Mr. Morrison: I shall certainly wish to to do that in a week's time.

Mr. Churchill: In good time next week because, if we do not get our separate Debate, our demand will reopen for a two days' Debate on the White Paper before Easter.

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: Before coming to a final decision next week, will the right hon. Gentleman look up the new Standing Order? I think he will find that we can have no Debate at all on the Report stage of the Budget Resolutions.

Mr. Morrison: I have not forgotten that.

Mr. House: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, if the Debate is cut into two parts, it is possible that roughly the same sets of speakers may be called for the second Debate as for the first?

Mr. Churchill: It is always possible that the hon. Member may not be called on either occasion.
With regard to the Palestine Bill on Friday, it seems very hard on the House to be asked to deal with all the remaining stages of the Bill on a short Friday Sitting. We are not opposing the Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We are not opposing the Bill. It is only doing what we strongly urged should be done two years ago. What I want to ask particularly is, if the House cannot get beyond the Report stage on Friday, will the Government find time for the Third Reading in the following week?

Mr. Morrison: I said, as the right hon. Gentleman will recall, that further progress will be made with the Palestine Bill and that the Government hope that it will be agreeable to the House to pass the Bill through all its remaining stages. I recognise that it may conceivably not be possible to get the whole of the Bill; on the other hand, I put this to the House generally, including my hon. Friends on this side, that yesterday was a Debate about a clear issue. It was a Debate as to whether we get out of Palestine quickly, in accordance with the time table laid down, or whether some other consideration could come in and there should be some delay. The House has decided by a very big majority to approve the policy of the Government. I should have thought, in the circumstances, that the sooner the Bill is through, the better, but we shall have to see how we go on. I would like the Bill to be through next Friday but, if that cannot be done, then we must arrange for the Third Reading to be taken a few days later.

Mr. Churchill: We are quite content with what the right hon. Gentleman said on that point.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: In view of the approach of the Easter Recess, and the approach of the time when the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland meets, when is it proposed to take the


Bill for the consideration of the emoluments of the Lord High Commissioner of the Church of Scotland?

Mr. Morrison: I regret to inform the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I am not adequately briefed on that subject.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Without wishing to raise any issue with my right hon. Friend now, will he bear in mind in regard to the Business for next Friday that the issue raised yesterday, although I agree it was clear, was not about the time table, but about the method? Therefore, there might be Amendments before the Committee which might take a little time.

Mr. Morrison: I thought not, because I thought the method and procedure were discussed. Once the House has reached a decision on Second Reading, although it is right that the Bill should be examined on the Committee stage, once the decision has been reached in principle, I do not think we would find that the Amendments would cut across that principle which was confirmed by the House. We shall have to see how we go. I do not want to be unreasonable.

Mr. Mikardo: Can my right hon. Friend hold out hope of any time, even a little time, being given to discuss the very important and valuable Report issued last week by the Cotton Manufacturing Commission, as a Debate on this subject might help in getting acceptance of this valuable Report?

Mr. Morrison: I am not familiar with the Report, which I gather was issued recently, and I cannot undertake to give time for discussion on it.

Mr. Gallacher: I wish to ask a question on a matter which is very seriously disturbing Scottish local authorities and I expect other local authorities—that is the increase in the interest rate. Will there be an opportunity for discussing that on the Budget, or at some time before the Budget, as it is of such great importance to local authorities?

Mr. Morrison: I should have thought that with a little Parliamentary ingenuity the hon. Member might be able to make a contribution to the Budget Debate on that matter.

Mr. Bing: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his decision of last week that the Northern Ireland administration is independent and not subordinate to this Parliament? Could not he grant time for the Motion which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean)?

[That this House regards an order made by the Minister of Home Affairs for Northern Ireland prohibiting a meeting called at Londonderry for 17th March, 1948, and to be addressed by the honourable Member for the Platting Division of Manchester and the honourable Gentleman the junior Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone as a violation of the constitutional rights of Members of this House to address the people whom they represent; and calls upon His Majesty's Government to seek powers so to amend the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, as to make it impossible for the Government of Northern Ireland to prohibit any public meeting called by Members of this House to discuss matters which are the responsibility of Parliament.]

Can he do that particularly in view of the authority which I sent to my right hon. Friend which takes a contrary view, and in view of the decision in the Government of Ireland Act that,
Notwithstanding the establishment of the Parliaments of Southern and Northern Ireland, or the Parliament of Ireland, or anything contained in this Act the supreme authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom..

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not pursue this matter at length. He can ask whether it can be debated, but cannot give unduly lengthy reasons for doing so.

Mr. Gallacher: The Leader of the House took quite a long time.

Mr. Bing: In view of Section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act, will my right hon. Friend reconsider his decision?

Mr. Morrison: The question is whether we will give facilities for a Debate on a Motion to amend the Government of Ireland Act. I am afraid we cannot. I cannot hold out hopes of that. In regard to the interesting and learned letter which my hon. Friend sent to me, I am getting briefed about that, and will answer him in due course.

Mr. Delargy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Motion referred to does not merely ask for amendment of the Government of Ireland Act, but asks this House to express its great displeasure at the prohibition placed on two hon. Members of this House?

Mr. Morrison: On that point, which is where we got to last week, I venture to say that it is not for this House to express opinions about the functions of another Parliament acting in accordance with its statutory functions.

Sir Hugh O'Neill: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Suppose that time were found for this Motion to be discussed—and personally I should have no objection whatever—would it be in Order for hon. Members, on the discussion of the Motion, to criticise the actions of another Government when there is nobody in this House to answer for that Government?

Mr. Speaker: I made that perfectly clear at Question Time last Thursday, when several supplementary questions were asked casting reflections on another independent Parliament. I promptly ruled the whole matter out of Order.

Mr. Mulvey: In view of the fact that three Nationalist meetings were banned in Northern Ireland in 1938 and that no Nationalist political meeting on the same scale was organised in the meantime up to this Londonderry meeting, which is now banned, may I take it that only the Government party of Northern Ireland has the right to organise political meetings?

Mr. Speaker: That is not in Order.

FILMS (ANGLO-U.S.A. AGREEMENT)

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): I am glad to be able to inform the House that the negotiations between His Majesty's Government and representatives of the American motion picture industry have resulted in an agreement. The details of the agreement are necessarily complicated and certain technical points are still being worked out. The whole agreement will be published as soon as possible. Mean-while I should like to give the House a summary of the essential features:
The ad valorem duty on imported films will be withdrawn as quickly as the necessary Order can be made, and the normal export of American films to the United Kingdom will be resumed as soon as possible thereafter. While it is the intention of the parties that the main structure of the agreement shall be for four years, it is divided into two periods of two years, with provision for review at the end of the first period. It will come into operation from 14th June. From that date and for the first period of two years an amount of 17 million dollars a year is fixed for the remittance of earnings in the United Kingdom from the showing of American films. This amount will cover, not only the earnings of new American films, but also the earnings of such films as are already in this country. Additional remittances, in dollars, of sums equivalent to the earnings of British films shown in the United States will be permitted.
The agreement provides for permitted sterling uses of the revenues of American films which are in excess of the amounts that may be remitted across the exchanges. These permitted uses will be under the supervision of a joint control committee composed of representatives of His Majesty's Government and the American motion picture industry.
Finally, the agreement contemplates that any residual balances which are not eventually disposed of by the above means may be cleared by agreed transactions not involving any strain on the foreign exchange position of the United Kingdom or creating a further claim on sterling. Such transactions might take the form of charitable or public uses, including the encouragement of the arts and sciences.
Both sides have approached these difficult negotiations in a fully co-operative spirit, and I should like to pay my tribute here to Mr. Johnston, Mr. Mulvey and their colleagues representing the American motion picture industry for their understanding of our problems and for the manner in which they have approached and conducted these negotiations.

Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: The fact that an agreement has been reached over this deadlock will give satisfaction in all parts of the House. At the same time, the arrangements, as the President of the Board of Trade said, are complicated. One part of them I find obscure, and I


cannot judge what the effect may be upon our dollar position. Therefore, I think it would be better to refrain from further comment until the President is able to publish the full details.

Mr. Mallalieu: Can my right hon. Friend say how the amount we are to pay in dollars under this agreement compares with the amount we are now paying out in dollars for re-issues?

Mr. Wilson: At present we are paying out as remittances on re-issues on films in this country at the rate of 50 million dollars a year and under the new arrangement the total will be 17 million dollars a year both for new films and re-issues.

Mr. Scollan: When the negotiations were going on, what was the estimated income in America from British films to make up the balance?

Mr. Wilson: It is very difficult indeed to form any estimate of what British films will be earning in America, but the fact that the American motion picture industry can absorb the dollar earnings of our films in the United States means that there will be the maximum possible inducement to the Americans to push our films in the United States.

Mr. Lyttelton: The right hon. Gentleman will agree that at present the earnings of British films in America are free, but under this arrangement they will not be free.

Mr. Wilson: They are free, but extremely small, because of the difficulty we have in pushing our films there, but, with the good will and incentive provided by this agreement, we hope to see a much better showing of our films over there.

Mr. Piratin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that this agreement will not in any way deter efforts to improve the standard of films produced in this country?

Mr. Wilson: Whether we got the agreement or not it would have been a cardinal point in our film policy to push ahead with the maximum number of films in this country, and to produce films of the finest quality possible.

Mr. Marlowe: Would not the amount of dollars involved in this agreement have provided a substantial petrol ration?

Mr. Wilson: It will have appeared from the figures I have given that the first result of the agreement will be to save and not to lose dollars.

Mr. Beswick: As there appears to be some misunderstanding, would my right hon. Friend say whether we are now remitting 50 million dollars or 15 million?

Mr. Wilson: Figures recently given to this House about remittances on re-issues show that the recent rate was of the order of £12 million per annum, which amounts to 50 to 55 million dollars a year.

Mr. De la Bère: Why not buy food instead?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 14, Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock and that if the first five Votes proposed shall have been agreed to by the Committee of Supply before half-past Nine o'clock, the Chairman shall proceed to put forthwith the Questions which he is directed Ito put at half-past Nine o'clock by paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 14."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

Captain Crookshank: This is, of course, the first time that a Motion of this character has appeared at this time of year. From the look of it, I think that the Leader of the House has put down the Motion that he would have put down had we been at the end of Supply. It is practically identical with what has previously been put down. I quite recognise that we must take the Motion today, that it is too late to alter it. The point I wish to put to the Lord President is this: Will he please consider this not to be a precedent for the future, and if there is a Motion, as I think there will have to be, for the Report stage on Monday next, will he reconsider this particular form of Motion between now and then?.
As I read it, it raises the point in my mind about the position that would arise if, by any chance, the Debate on the Supplementary Estimates which have been specifically put down were to collapse for any reason. If anyone who looks surprised at that suggestion will think back, they will remember that Supplementary Estimates are, in Debate, quite unaccountable. So often something is ruled out of Order, and a Debate which is expected to last for a certain length of time does not do so; that is quite frequently the case. For example, supposing that the Debate today on the first five Votes came to an end at about 8 o'clock, it would mean that under this Motion the Guillotine would fall at 8 o'clock, in spite of the fact that all the other Votes were discussable. That cannot be right in the case of Supplementary Estimates.
When the Guillotine was on after 19 or 20 days of Supply, as it used to be, one was debating the main Estimates, and there was no likelihood of the Debate collapsing through being out of Order or going wide or anything of that kind. It

is a problem which could not have arisen, but it is a problem which may quite well arise in the case of Supplementary Estimates. Therefore, while I daresay it is too late to amend this Motion now to safeguard-the position which I have in mind—and if it is too late we do not want to obstruct the business now—I ask that the point should be looked at before a similar Motion is put down on Monday, so that if there was any risk of debate collapsing, we could go on to other Votes.
I ask the Leader of the House to be quite sure that at this time next year, if he still has anything to do with public affairs—that is not necessarily likely; he may be in another place by then—he and those who are permanently considering these matters on behalf of the Government, whatever Government it may be, should look to see whether this is not the wrong form of Motion. I quite see how it has crept in. They have taken the precedent which is followed after 19 days of Supply. I do not think it is a good precedent, and I see the risk it involves if Debate should collapse.

Mr. H. Morrison: I will convey the observations of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to the powers of permanence and try to see that there is a suitable clear-up on Monday if that is necessary. The purpose of the Motion, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman himself apprehends, is the same as that of the customary Motion at the end of consideration of the Main Estimates in July. Clearly, the Debate on the five outstanding Votes might finish earlier than 9.3o p.m., and the Chair would be in difficulty in putting the Question unless empowered to do so. That is the purpose of the Motion. I will look into the point which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has raised, and also into any others he might like to raise with me privately, so that we may be ready to deal with the matter on a future occasion. If the Motion should require to be in a different form, or if procedure should be different, we shall be happy to consider that.

Mr. Churchill: Is it not for the convenience of the House that the Guillotine should fall at a fixed hour, instead of at an hour which no one can foresee?

Mr. Morrison: I quite agree, and that would have been particularly true in olden days when it was regularly the case


that there were about 20 Divisions, and hon. Members whose Division average was low had a great opportunity to improve it. We have less of that now. But I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is desirable for discussion to end at 9.3o p.m., so that hon. Members know that they have a reasonable certainty of participating in any Division there may be if they are there at that hour. This Motion is only down in the very unlikely event of that not happening.

Question put, and agreed to.

Proceedings of the Committee of Ways and Means exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[8TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLE-MENTARY ESTIMATES, 1947–48.

CLASS X

MINISTRY OF FOOD

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £142,328,498 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 5948, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Food; the cost of trading services including certain subsidies; and sundry other services.

Orders of the Day — ANGLO-ARGENTINE AGREEMENT

3.59 P.m.

Mr. Turton: A fortnight ago we had a valuable Debate on this subject, but we were hampered by the fact that both sides of the House were labouring under a great disadvantage. They had no firm details of what they were talking about. We on the Opposition side had to rely on the reports in newspapers of what had been transacted, whereas the Government relied on certain inaccurate and incomplete telegrams. Now we have had published Cmd. 7346, which sets out in detail the Argentine Agreement, under which £95 million of this Vote comes.
Before I come to details of that Agreement, I should like to make one small point to the Minister of Food. It is a very small defect in this agreement. When we have an agreement which clearly has been put into two languages may we in future have a complete translation? I found very hampering the fact that, in this Agreement, the Government and their advisers have translated the words but they have not translated the weights. It is far better if we can have it all translated, so that we can compare it with the Trade and Navigation Returns. I wasted 20 minutes of my time translating that part of the Agreement.
The first of two main general points which I wish to make, is what exactly is represented by the Vote of £100 million? The Chancellor of the Exchequer says this:
What we have been able to secure, as a result of the Agreement, is, first, all the foodstuffs and feeding stuffs we wish to secure from the Argentine during the ensuing 12 months. The bill for those goods amounts, roughly, to £110 million.
That would be all our purchases under this heading from the Argentinue for 12 months. Later he drew attention to a certain ambiguity about that, and said:
What I meant was that the goods which we are going to buy, and have agreed to buy, and they have agreed to sell us, will cost £110 million." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1948; Vol. 447, cc. 1685 and 1692.]
The only enlightenment that we can get of that from the Agreement comes from Article IV (a). The Committee will see that it sets out that:
The Government of the United Kingdom agree to pay in advance to the Argentine Government for the account of the Argentine Institute for the Promotion of Trade the amount of £110 million representing the approximate sterling value of the commodities"—
set out in the Schedule—and also the unshipped balances of the existing contracts; and there is mentioned the extra £10 million. From that I think it is clear—and if I am not right I hope that I shall be corrected—that £110 million represents articles in the schedule and also the unspecified unshipped balances. If we are to see what we are paying in this Supplementary Vote it is clearly necessary at some stage in the Debate for the Minister of Food to tell us the totals, not item by item, but the totals of the unshipped balances. The second conclusion which I draw from those three quotations is that it is clear that the Government are resolved not to spend more than £110 million and not to pay more than the quantities in the Agreement and the unspecified quantities of unshipped balances from the Argentine before 31st March, 1949. I hope that we shall have a clear statement from the Minister of Food before this Debate closes.
The second general point which I wish to make is this. The right hon. Gentleman may be relieved to hear that he has made it very clear, I think regrettably clear, that he does not intend to divulge

what are the contract prices which he has paid to the Argentine under this Agreement. I regret it, but I have far too little time to waste to argue it. I wish to make it abundantly evident to the House that this will be a grave defect of State trading. When, in pre-war days, private enterprise was buying grain and meat for this country, the whole world knew the price we were paying. We were paying the world price. There was not the hush and secrecy attending the transactions of the Minister of Food. If he is refusing today to tell us the prices, he must realise the damaging effect that that secrecy and hush is having on his administration. We are giving the impression abroad that when the Minister and his advisers come to buy feedingstuffs and food, they are both slow and extravagant buyers for the people of this country. The taxpayers will be very chary of paying the large sums involved without any detail of the prices at which the goods have been bought.
This Agreement, and the Vote that is attending it, can be divided into five quite distinct headings: grain, feedingstuffs, linseed oil, animal fats and meat. I intend to make my remarks quite distinct under each heading. It may surprise the Minister that under one heading he will find that I shall not be unduly critical in what I have to say. I would take the Committee into my picture of the grain position in the Argentine by reminding them of the history of the matter. In 1946 there was a surplus of maize in the Argentine of 2,000,000 tons. That was a year when we were buying under a State purchasing mission and other countries were using the methods of private enterprise. Out of that surplus of 2,000,000 tans of maize we got only the leavings. The foreign and Empire purchasers, working in many cases under private enterprise, took the vast bulk. The exports to this country were 86,000 tons of maize—a paltry figure.
South Africa, to take one example, bought 330,000 tons of maize in 1946. By the end of 1946 South Africa was able to take off the rationing that restricted the buying of feedingstuffs for poultry. In July, 1947, I remember that the Minister of Food came proudly to the House saying that he had bought up all the surplus egg production of South Africa. I dearly wished that we had that maize that was


bought by private enterprise, and then we could have had a surplus egg production in this country. In 1947 crops of maize in the Argentine were good and there was a surplus of four million tons. The Minister of Food bought 700,000 tons and by 1st February he had shipped 470,000 tons. There was, of course, this difference. When the Argentine were selling maize, we could have bought, if we had been more successful in our negotiations, at a price of £15 a ton. Last year, when the Minister bought the maize, the price—the only price I know—was £21 a ton, which is a good deal higher. There is an unshipped balance of maize therefore of 230,000 tons of the 700,000 tons contract.
The position in the Argentine, according to the grain report of 1st February, was that there was a surplus from the 1947 crop of just under 2,000,000 tons still left. That was months before the maize harvest in the Argentine. The crop report on the maize harvest is that it is generally developing very satisfactorily and a large crop is certain. Therefore, it is clear that the Argentine will have another exportable surplus something in the region of that which they had last year. I want to take a conservative estimate. I will put the exportable surplus for the current 1948 crop at three million tons. The Argentine have an unexpended surplus from 1947 of just under two million tons, and there will be three million tons from the 1948 crop. That means that there will be a total of five million tons of maize available for purchase by whoever wants it and can pay for it. That is a reasonably fair way of putting the position.
What is the right hon. Gentleman getting under this Vote? He is getting 1,103,600 tons of maize. We are told that he is getting that not at the price of £30 a ton but, as he admitted, at a price of just under £30—shall we say, £28—a ton. That is a price far higher than he need have paid last year, when there was this big surplus of four million tons, or the year before when it was sold at £15 a ton and when there was a surplus of only two million tons. That is a most unsatisfactory result, not only in regard to price but in regard to quantity. We need that maize badly in agriculture for general feedingstuffs and especially for poultry. Our poultry industry is starved. Hon. Members in all parts of

the Committee who are interested in the poultry industry know that if we could only get double that quantity of maize it would make a great difference to the breakfast tables of the country.
But there is another complication. Notwithstanding the recommendations of the Boddinar Committee, pigs are of extreme importance to everybody—to the pig clubs and especially to the breakfast tables of the country. When I was in the Argentine last year, I discovered that there was to be an exportable surplus of barley. That was well known in the Argentine in July last year. The Minister of Food told me in October that he had managed to buy 300,000 tons of that barley. I was very pleased about that. It is a pity that it was not bought many months earlier. It is a pity that only 120,000 tons of that 300,000 tons had arrived in this country by 1st February. I suppose that the other 180,000 tons of barley is an unshipped balance, and that it is additional to the 300,000 tons of barley mentioned in this Agreement.
Hon. Members will recollect that in the Agreement it is stated that if the Ministry want 300,000 tons of barley, they can have it if they take 300,000 tons less of maize. We want both the barley and the maize. Why cannot we get more barley than that?

Mr. Sparks: They want too much for it.

Mr. Turton: It may be that the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is cheaper to buy bacon than barley. If that is so, he makes a great mistake. We are buying bacon, and I hope that we will buy more bacon, but it is far cheaper to buy the barley and feed it to our pigs to get manure to encourage the agricultural industry and to produce our own bacon, than to take the advice of the hon. Gentleman and to buy bacon.
What is the position in regard to barley? On 1st February of this year there were 536,000 tons of barley available for purchase. That figure comes from the grain report of that date. That is in addition to the 300,000 tons. Why are we not buying more barley than that? Under the heading of grain, I do not think that we are getting enough for our agricultural needs. We have been far too slow in getting into this market. It would


have been easier to buy if we had bought a year or so earlier. We are late. I do not intend to rattle the Government on that. What is past is past. The Government have committed many crimes. I suggest that they should be buying a larger quantity than they are buying under this heading.
I now come to the question of feeding-stuffs. We are buying 76,000 tons of wheat offals and 90,000 tons of oil cakes and oil meals—a total of 166,000 tons. Last year we bought 387,000 tons. In fact, under the Agreement, we are buying only 50 per cent. of last year's total of animal feedingstuffs. The Minister must explain that figure in an attempt to justify it before the farmers of the country will begin to think that they are getting a fair deal from this Government. We have been told by the Minister of Agriculture that there is no hope of an increase in the ration of feedingstuffs before March, 1949. Is that bound up with the failure of the Ministry of Food to buy even up to last year's figure of Argentine feedingstuffs? Before the war, we were not getting these processed feedingstuffs. We were buying linseed and crushing it here. We imported 500,000 tons of linseed and, in addition, 330,000 tons of animal feedingstuffs from the Argentine.
Now, under this Agreement we are getting for the whole year only one-sixth of what we got prewar. It may be, and I hope it is, that the reason for the smallness of this figure is that there are large quantities of unshipped balances of previous contracts for animal feedingstuffs. I assure the Minister that if he tells us that is a delusive figure and that actually he has some 200,000 tons awaiting shipment and purchased, nobody will be more delighted than me and other hon. Members who are interested in agriculture.
I refer for a moment to linseed oil. Again, we need a little explanation from the Minister. We are buying only 17,800 tons of linseed oil. Last year, we bought 107,000 tons. I do not know why the amount has fallen so considerably. Linseed oil is not only important as an integral component of agricultural feeding-stuffs, but it is also of great importance to the paint and linoleum industries. It may be that there is some mistake in the figure Perhaps it ought to be higher; it

may be a misprint. I say that because, taking the value in this Vote under "Oils and Fats," with the increase due to the Argentine Agreement, it comes to £16,400,000. Taking the 17,000 tons of linseed at last year's prices—which we know from the Trade and Navigation Returns, from where we are allowed to find out these things—that would cost some £3 million. Taking the animal fats at last year's prices again, that would amount to £9 million, making a total of £12 million. Thus, there is a deficiency of £4,400,000.
It may be that linseed should be a higher figure than 17,000 tons, or is it that the prices have gone up by 33⅓ per cent. over last year's price? It could hardly be that, because linseed reached its peak shortly before I was in the Argentine and since then has been steadily falling in price. I cannot understand that figure of £16,400,000, and perhaps the Minister will explain it.
Taking the next item—animal fats—we are getting 40,000 tons, whereas last year we obtained 17,800 tons under that heading. I think that the negotiators and the Minister of Food are to be congratulated for having obtained so much animal fats under this agreement. I have a suspicion that this has probably been one of the easiest tasks of the negotiators, and I will explain that to the Committee. For some reason which I never could quite understand, the right hon. Gentleman in 1946, when he negotiated with Argentina, bought the carcases and the hides but left behind all the animal fats which would have made so much difference to the housewives' fat ration last year. Here, we are at last getting back to common sense, and we are buying not only the carcases, but also the tallow and the lard.
Finally, we come to meat, and this is one of the hardest parts of the White Paper to understand. Up to now, I have been talking of raw materials, and meat is the finished product, but, until we can get the foodstuffs into this country and get the necessary build-up for our store cattle industry, it is quite clear that a great part of our meat ration must come from Argentina. I regard the meat ration as an essential incentive to production at the present time. After all, if we increase the meat ration, both in the coalmines and the


steel works, we shall get a greater production in so far as we increase the ration. What is being done here?
Last year, we imported 500,000 tons of meat from Argentina. Here, we are importing 420,000 tons—a cut, I think that is the right phrase, of 80,000 tons. It is perfectly true that, of that cut, 67,000 tons comes in canned corned meat and 13,000 tons in frozen meat. I think that many other hon. Members and myself have no great affection for canned corned meat. I lived for a long period of my life with the old "bully," fried "bully," "bully" fritters, "bully" stew and all the variations which the Army Catering Corps could devise, but it does not appeal to me in its canned form, and I think the right hon. Gentleman is right in reducing the amount of canned meat. If he reduces it, however, he surely must replace it by frozen meat, and that cut cannot be justified at the present day without further explanation. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us that.
Generally, my view on this Agreement which we are discussing is that, with the exception of animal fats, where we have got a very tardy return to common sense, we are not getting the feedingstuffs and meat which this country requires. I know that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government have difficulties over this, and I recognise them, because I know that when we go in for State trading with Argentina we are in a very great difficulty, but that is a difficulty which is inherent in the State trading system. Under State trading, at a time when commodity prices are high, we find that the selling Government will take good care that it gets all the advantages over the purchasing Government. That seems to me to be an argument against State trading, and hardly an argument in defence of the Government.
This Argentine Agreement has failed us and has failed agriculture. It has whetted the appetite of Colonel Peron, who got his railway victory and his Andes victory, and he now goes off to the Falk-land Islands and Antarctica. I think the Minister of Food has been far too complacent and subservient to Argentina and should have got us a far better deal. I recognise that, when Colonel Peron comes on to the Falklands and Antarctica, he is dealing with much sterner stuff than

the complacency of the Minister of Food. When he has to deal with the Foreign Secretary and the British Navy, he may find that these are different stuff to tackle. This is not a successful agreement, and this Vote represents money spent in a very poor shopping effort by the Minister of Food. He should have bought more with this money when we require these foodstuffs and feedingstuffs so urgently. I hope that, when the Minister of Food retires, as in the interests of the housewives and the farmers he soon must, he may go home and copy the example of Sir Neville Henderson and write a book—"Failure of a Mission."

4.27 p.m.

Mr. Mellish: I do not want to take up too much of the time of the Committee in replying to the points of the hon. Gentleman opposite, who described the present Minister of Food as being most inefficient, but I would like to say that that is only the opinion of the Opposition, and that the vast majority of the people are very satisfied with the manner in which and the methods by which the Minister of Food arranges the rations of the people of this country. Most of the criticism levelled against my right hon. Friend by the hon. Gentleman opposite was most unfair. In their criticism, hon. Members opposite seem to forget that we are standing on our own feet, and that what the Minister has to do today, is due to the inefficiency of people in the pre-war years who did not develop our own agriculture. As a consequence, the Agreement with Argentina is only one of those things which we have unfortunately to accept, because we have to feed our people, and beggars cannot be choosers. I hope the Minister will regard the criticism of the Opposition as being quite unimportant, because the vast majority of the people of this country are more than satisfied with the way in which the Ministry is arranging their rations.
The point in which I am interested in this Supplementary Estimate is that concerning transport, warehousing and ancillary services, on which we are spending £22 million. I am rather interested in this, because I represent a constituency which contains perhaps the largest amount of warehousing accommodation in this country. I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that, in the opinion of the people who


work in these warehouses, insufficient attention is given to the methods by which our food is being stored. I have had a great number of complaints from our people who work in the docks. They assure me, for example, that sugar has been stored in the open over periods of something like three years without having been inspected, and consequently a lot has deteriorated. I brought a complaint to the Minister's attention, some time ago, about 18,000 cases of grapefruit. It is true that part of the cargo was found to have arrived in a damaged condition when the cases were offloaded from the ship, but they were not inspected, and consequently were allowed to deteriorate, and most of the cargo went bad.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: On a point of Order. For the further course of this Debate, it would be most useful to have your Ruling on this matter, Major Milner. If you look at the Supplementary Estimates, you will see that the original Estimate for transport, warehousing and ancillary services was £29,300,000. The Estimate, as now revised, is £22,300,000. Therefore, less has been spent than was contemplated under this head. I should like your Ruling, Major Milner, whether a Debate on a matter of this sort is competent. We desire, of course, to have the widest possible Debate, and I do not in the least want to stop the hon. Gentleman, but in order that the matter may be put right and that we may know where we stand, in this and future Debates, I would welcome your Ruling as to whether or not the hon. Gentleman is in Order.

The Chairman: Speaking without notice, so long as there is a change in the Supplementary Estimate, as compared with the main Estimate, whether the change be up or down, I think it is in Order for this Committee to debate it.

Mr. Mellish: The point I particularly want to establish is that this money is being paid out and I feel we ought to get better value for it. I was talking about the question of 18,000 cases of grapefruit, a tremendously large consignment, probably enough to supply the whole of London for one weekend. Most of that cargo was allowed to go bad. There was a further incident that I

brought to the attention of the Ministry—not, in this case, the Ministry of Food, but the Ministry of Transport, because I felt they were responsible at the time—and that was the case of a large cargo of tea loaded when the workers had already complained of the condition of the craft. Nevertheless, regardless of the complaints, the cargo of tea was loaded and many thousands of cases of tea were lost.
I want to make it clear that I do not hold the Minister of Food responsible for this. I recognise that in the tremendous field which he covers certain things are bound to go wrong in the administration, but I maintain—and I am very serious about this—that there must be stricter supervision, particularly at the ports where this food is stored, in view of the shortage of foodstuffs in this country and in order to ensure that what is available is fairly rationed. I would like to have from the Minister of Food, when he replies, some information as to what steps are being taken about the storage of food in docks and warehouses, and whether any improvement can be made.
Hon. Members opposite have made constant complaints about the number of enforcement officers employed by the Ministry of Food, and yet it is rather extraordinary that they are complaining, too, from time to time, of certain discrepancies and certain black market operations. At Question time we get all these complaints. I believe the answer is that we must have more enforcement officers to do this work. I think it is necessary, and if these people do their job, particularly in the docks and warehouses where this food is stored, I believe they will be doing a first-class job of work.
This is particularly interesting to me in my position as Member of Parliament for a docks area. The dockers cannot understand, for example, why sugar is so severely rationed when thousands of tons have been there for two or three years. It is very difficult for them to understand. They cannot understand why their wives have to give up so many points for a tin of grape fruit when 18,000 cases are allowed to deteriorate. It certainly is not logical. I want to make this clear; I have told our people that they are as much responsible as the people who own the warehouses,


because if they see anything going on they must tell us about it. I have their assurance that we shall have proper co-operation from them, but I should like to hear from the Minister of Food on this question, in particular. Apart from the complaints I have made, I still maintain, from my own experience outside, that our rationing system is the fairest in the world. It is accepted by everybody, except the Opposition, as the finest system in the world, and the Minister of Food can be assured that we, on this side, are behind him 100 per cent.

4.36 p.m.

Mr. Osborne: The hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Mellish) rather contradicted himself. He chided us on these benches, and said that the people of England are very satisfied with the work of the Minister of Food. I think that tribute is rather extraordinary, coming from the hon. Member, since his predecessor was, of course, Sir Ben Smith. He himself would not have been in this House if the first Socialist Minister of Food had not been a complete failure.

Mr. Mellish: It was suggested in the by-election that he had been a complete and utter failure, but the result was that the Tory candidate lost his deposit.

Mr. Osborne: If I may pursue that point, if he was such a great success, it is a pity the Government got rid of him. The other point I want to raise is this. The hon. Member complained to us that we are spending all this amount of money and that we ought to be getting a better value for the money we are spending. After making that complaint, he cannot surely be satisfied with the Minister who is responsible for spending all this money. There is another point I should like to make. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) said that Colonel Peron had won the railway agreement and had got the best of the bargain. I rather regret hearing that said in this House, because I understood that the railway agreement was a fair agreement as between both sides, and both were satisfied with the terms.
I am sorry to see evidence of the lack of interest taken by this House in food matters. We have the benches almost completely empty on both sides when we are dealing with the most important subject

for this country—that of food. Yesterday, when we were discussing Palestine, it was almost impossible to get, a seat. Today, there is no interest taken in what is fundamentally one of our greatest problems—the feeding of our people.
When the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his explanatory speech on the Argentine Agreement, he said:
If it should happen that there are any other questions about the agreement which hon. Members wish to raise, I will do my best to answer them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1948, Vol. 447, c. 1689.]
With your permission, Major Milner, there are a number of specific questions I wish to put to the Minister of Food in pursuance of that promise. The Minister of Food himself, finishing his speech the same day, said:
I wish to repeat what the Chancellor said at the beginning of the Debate, that the advantages—and we believe that they are very substantial—to this country … are that it enables completion of the railway deal, which we think is a very real advantage to us, so that our very substantial food programme can be carried through."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1948, Vol. 447, c. 1733.]
I want to deal with these two points, if I may. As I understand it, we are paying out £100 million for the food which it is promised shall be sent to us in the next 13 months up to 31st March, 1949. When the Chancellor explained the position, he said he would not give the House the detailed prices at which the purchases were made, but he said:
The prices at which they were bought … were rather higher than those which we paid before.
He went on to explain that by saying,
That is quite natural, as there has, of course, been, on the whole, a very sharply rising market since our last contract."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1948; Vol.447, c. 1685.]
I am not asking the Minister to tell the Committee how much is paid for each item. I think that in existing circumstances that would be unreasonable. I do, however, ask him to tell us whether we are paying, say, 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. more on the whole. If we are, we are paying £100 million for food, allowing for the rise in prices, that is worth only £90 million—food which, in volume, is worth £90 million. In the Memoran-


dum to the revised Supplementary Estimate, we are told that we are making an extra £10 million ex gratia payment in a
… single cash payment … as a contribution towards the increased Argentine costs of production in respect of the food agreed to be purchased by the United Kingdom.
All this surely means that we are to get £90 million worth of food and that we are to pay £110 million for it. So few people in the country or in this Committee realise the significance of what we are doing. It means that the workers and employers of this country—and this is what I wish the Minister would put over in his publicity—have to produce more if we are to enjoy as high a standard, or as low a standard—at any rate, the same standard of comfort—in food as we have had in the past year—if we are to have the same amount of food.
It means that the people in Lancashire, for instance, have to produce 11 yards of cloth where previously they produced nine; that the people of Yorkshire have to produce it yards of cloth, whereas they produced previously only nine; that the workers of Coventry and Birmingham have to produce 11 motor cars instead of nine. These people have to produce that much more in order to eat the same amount as they did last year. The miners throughout the country have to dig II million tons of coal whereas nine million tons were enough to get the same amount of food. That is the most important consideration in this Supplementary Estimate. I beg the Minister of Food to forget narrow party points that may have been made from either side, and put over to the country this all-important economic factor—that if we are to live at anything like the same rate as that at which we have been living, we have to produce that much more to get the same amount of food.

Mr. Fernyhough: Will the hon. Member carry that argument further, and say that the owners have to be satisfied now with £9 of profit for every £11 of profit they had last year?

Mr. Osborne: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I said that I was speaking of the whole country. I am tired of narrow party politics. I am trying to speak now of every one of us, and I did mention the employers as well as the workers. We are all in the same boat together.

The efficiency of the country as a whole is what matters. We sink or swim together. It is no longer a case of 9d. for 4d.; it is a case of 11d. for 9d.; and the sooner we all realise that, the sooner we shall be able to get out of the troubles with which we are faced.
Mention has been made of the effect on the food subsidies. There seems to be a pathetic belief in the country that somehow, by juggling with figures and paying subsidies, our food ration can be maintained. It cannot. The food ration can be maintained only if the right hon. Gentleman can purchase more and more food, and he can purchase more and more food only in so far as we have stuff that we can sell or exchange for the food we wish to purchase. Where, I ask Ministers, are the hon. Members who should be interested in this vital factor? [An HoN. MEMBER: "Where are they on that side?"] I agree. I was speaking of both sides of the Committee. It is their absence that I deplore. We are facing a much graver problem than most Members on either side of the Committee realise. It is unfair to make certain attacks upon the Minister, because to blame him for the entire shortage of foodstuffs in the world, and for not getting more under this Agreement, is not fair to him. This Agreement has to be looked at against the background of the whole food position of the world.
I should like to read out two or three facts from the latest Economic Report of the United Nations. They are significant facts. The report, dated January, 1948, says:
The world's population is now greater than a decade ago by almost 200 million, or nearly 10 per cent.

Mr. McKinlay: On a point of Order. I am the last to wish to cramp any hon. Member's style, but I want to ask what are the possibilities of allowing matters like this to be raised? How far are we to be permitted to travel amid the economic affairs of the world, on an Estimate of the Ministry of Food? I should like to know what was the relevance of the matter of the Argentine railways to this Estimate? I ask that question for the simple reason that I presume that those hon. Members who represent constituencies where there are shipyards and ports would be entitled to state what contribution the shipbuilding industry


might make to the purchase of food. I am sorry that the hon. Member is not here who represents that part of Hackney where the dog track is, because, presumably, he would be entitled to say what the contribution is or should be of dog tracks to the purchase of food.

The Chairman: Anything which relates to the operations of the Ministry of Food is, of course, in Order. A factor affecting those operations, according to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), is that the population of the world has increased in recent years. That may be so. As to the other question, about the railways, I understood that the hon. Member merely referred to the sale of the railways as being incidental to the contemporaneous purchase of food. That would appear to be in Order.

Mr. McKinley: Further to that point of Order, Major Milner. The argument appeared to be about the purchase or sale of railways as against the purchase of food.

The Chairman: I do not think so. The question is one of the sale, not the purchase of railways in exchange for food.

Mr. Osborne: If the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) had done me the courtesy of allowing me to finish my sentence, I should have been able to show, even to the satisfaction of his intelligence, that this has something to do with the purchase of food from Argentina. Not only are there 200 million more people living on the planet than there were 10 years ago, but the food production of the world last year was 7 per cent. less than food production was 10 years ago. That is a vitally important fact. If the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire does not understand that, I am sorry for him. The Report goes on to say:
The world food situation is now as critical as at any time since the end of the Second World War.
It is obviously unfair to blame the right hon. Gentleman for not obtaining food that does not exist. [Interruption.] I cannot understand the relevance of the interruption. With regard to the other interruption on a point of Order——

Mr. McKinlay: On a point of Order, Major Milner. I want to know whether the relevance of an intervention on a point of Order can be challenged. Surely,

a Member is entitled to rise on a point of Order at any time, and it is for the Chairman to determine whether it is a point of Order or not.

Mr. Osborne: I apologise, and in that respect I withdraw. It is very relevant to the task that the right hon. Gentleman has ahead of him to consider all the factors. He cannot purchase food that does not exist. Furthermore, this Report, which I would remind hon. Members is a non-party Report, says on page 191:
The world food situation is as critical this year as at any time since the end of the Second World War … Food shortages have become a chronic feature of the post-war world ''—
and that is a factor we have to face. It goes on to say:
… the steady increase of population may be expected to continue …
Therefore, the problem of the right hon. Gentleman, instead of becoming easier, will get more difficult. There are plenty of points on which the right hon. Gentleman may be attacked legitimately, so that it is quite unnecessary to attack him groundlessly.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summer-skill): Hear, hear.

Mr. Osborne: I will come to those points in good time, and then I should like to hear the hon. lady's "Hear, hear." My final quotation from this publication is:
Food production in the world's food exporting countries has greatly increased, although large parts of the additional output are being consumed domestically,
by the countries who are producing it. As I understand it, something like 15 per cent. more of the world's food is being consumed by the countries which produce it. Therefore, there is a great deal less food in the world's "kitty" for the right hon. Gentleman to purchase. That is one of his basic troubles, and it is only fair to make that point clear. But I ask the hon. Lady to go out and tell her constituents that, and make it quite clear to the country that if we are to get the food that she and her party so easily promised to the country two and a half years ago, they must work a great deal harder to get it. That is the true significance of this Report.
If I am not out of Order, Major Milner, I would like to give the Committee one figure in relation to railways. The railways were discussed previously both by the Chancellor and the Minister of Food. I understand that in the 10 years before Munich—that is pre-June, 1938—the British railways in the Argentine which we have now lost, sent over to this country £58 million in the way of food and raw materials for what were called financial services—interest, dividends, expenses of London offices, etc. This deal means that in the future that supply of food will be lost to us. Never again shall we have it, and the country ought to realise that. It is true that we shall have food from the Argentine for a year and a half as a result of this deal, but after March, 1949, the flow of about £7,500,000 in foodstuffs per year that used to come from our railways in the Argentime by way of financial services will be lost to us. That is also a factor to which I would like the hon. Lady to say "Hear, hear," and to explain to her constituents.

Dr. Summerskill: I told them at North Croydon on Monday night.

Mr. Osborne: I am glad to hear it. Before I conclude, I would like to ask two specific questions. In his speech of explanation the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
What we have been able to secure, as a result of the agreement, is, first, all the foodstuffs and feedstuffs we wish to secure from the Argentine during the ensuing 12 months.
Surely, that was a misstatement. We have not secured all the food we wish. Had we secured all we wish to secure, there would be no rationing. Our meat would not be at the present miserably low level. Could the right hon. Gentleman explain what was meant by those words? Surely, we have not got all we want. Did the Chancellor mean that we had got all that we could afford to pay for? If so, how much more food is there in the Argentine which we could have had, had we had exports with which to pay for it? The Chancellor also said in his speech that one of the side issues to this bargain was that
… the Argentine Government agreed to give a most-favoured-nation-treatment to the import of British goods, and also to grant import permits to the value of £10 million in 1948.

He went on to say:
… it applies to certain special categories which, hitherto, had been subject to restriction on entry into the Argentine market.
Can the Chancellor tell us what specific trades will be allowed to export to the Argentine within that limit of £10 million? Can he tell us the approximate proportion for each trade? Obviously, it will interest vitally the people who want to export there. The Chancellor also said:
We have also agreed to facilitate the supply to the Argentine during 1948 of certain commodities which are important to their economy, including one million tons of coal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1948; Vol. 447, c. 1685–6.]
Is the one million tons of coal the limit that they could take, or is it the limit that we could send to them? I understand that before the war the Argentine railways alone took over one million tons of British coal. Then, of course, there were the gas, electricity, and other commercial undertakings, besides the country's domestic requirements. Would the Argentine have taken more coal from us over and above that one million tons if we could have supplied it? Is there any hope of increasing the one million tons?—because if there is, we could get more food, and it is that which I am after. I would like to know at what price that coal was sold to the Argentine. I am not asking for the figure, but I would like to know whether it was sold at the same price which we could have obtained in another export market. If it was sold at a price less than we could have obtained elsewhere, then we are subsidising the purchase of food. Can we have an assurance that we had a true and proper price for the coal we sold?
Finally, I want to make this special appeal to the Minister. Will he go to the country and explain in easily understood language the difficulties of the world food situation and the difficulties which he is encountering? Would he also explain to the country that if we are to maintain our standard of living and have as much food in the future as we have had in the past, we have got to work to pay for it?

4.59 P.m.

Mr. Sparks: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) who, I thought, made a very closely reasoned


speech, based very largely on the Anglo-Argentine Trade Agreement; but there appeared to be some assumptions underlying the hon. Gentleman's speech which, I thought, were to some extent rather false. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the surpluses that were available in the Argentine—maize, barley, and linseed oil in particular—and seemed to suggest that a weakness on the part of His Majesty's Government was responsible for us securing less of those surpluses than we should have done if our negotiators had been stronger.

Mr. Turton: I was quoting the reports from the principle grain merchants in Buenos Aires.

Mr. Sparks: Yes, I understood that the hon. Gentleman was doing that, but although it may be true that there are surpluses available in the Argentine, whether we are in a position to obtain them in the quantity we should like is quite a different matter. I remember reading, not so long ago, a quotation from a statement made by an important gentleman who was concerned in negotiating with us a trade agreement in the Argentine, and who said that he was responsible for burning considerable quantities of wheat so that the price of the remainder would thereby be enhanced. This meant that countries which needed the wheat which was available would have to pay a higher price. This gentleman also said that he was responsible for burning considerable quantities of linseed oil, thereby forcing up the price of this commodity, so that nations like ourselves would have to pay higher prices because less surplus was available. It is all very well to attempt to blame the Government for not securing larger quantities of the surpluses which the hon. Gentleman said now existed in the Argentine, but to do that there must be a willingness on the part of those who negotiate for the Argentine to dispose of these surpluses at a figure which we can afford to pay.
The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton suggested that we had been given no clear indication as to what quantity of barley we would be able to import. He said that by increasing our imports of barley from the Argentine we could feed it to pigs, and so provide more bacon for the home market. But the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) reminded us that

the more purchases we made, the greater the quantity of goods and commodities we must export to pay for those imports. If our imports of Argentine products had been increased above the present level—assuming that could have been done—we should have had to have exported more goods to help pay for those imports. That is our national problem, not only in relation to the Argentine but to many other countries as well. Our exports are not sufficiently great to pay for all the food and raw materials we would like to import. Therefore, we must, to some extent, cut our garment according to the available cloth.
I believe that my right hon. Friend made a very good trade agreement with the Argentine, and I am quite satisfied that, far from the principle of bulk purchase sending up the cost of goods we buy, it has been a great influence in actually reducing costs. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton said there were difficulties about State trading, inasmuch as it lead to a demand for higher prices. I do not believe that because, by bulk purchase, it is possible to place a far larger order to a prospective seller. It is the law of economics that the larger the order that can be placed the lower is the purchase price which can be expected to be paid.

Mr. Turton: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that Senor Miranda, who increased the price of maize from £15 a ton to about £, without giving the producer more than an extra £1 per ton, has not benefited by State trading?

Mr. Sparks: We cannot be concerned with what Senor Miranda does with the producer. We have no right to interfere in the internal affairs of the Argentine Government. What the hon. Gentleman has just said may be true, but who are we to demand that the Argentine Government should pass more of the increased price on to the producer? It is far beyond our power to lay down such an instruction as that.
The Opposition assume a willingness to negotiate with us for the purchase of Argentine surpluses, but all we can do is to arrive at a common agreement, one which we can mutually accept. The present Trade Agreement has taken a considerable time to bring to finality, largely because the Argentine first asked for a


considerably increased price on what they were proposing to sell to us—I think it was about 54 per cent. over previous prices. On the basis of the contracts entered into by the Ministry of Food, I think the general level of the increase has been confined to about 30 per cent. It is regrettable that that increased cost has to be paid, but when 30 per cent. is weighed in the balance against the 54 per cent. that was originally demanded, I think it is reasonable to say that the Agreement is the best that could have been obtained.
To blame bulk purchase for that is quite absurd. If the Minister had been unable to go to the Argentine with a large order and it had been left to private enterprise to do the job, I believe that the cost to us would have been considerably more than it is today. Those who paid the highest price would have had the greatest quantities, and those who could not pay that price would have had none at all. There would be an incentive to play one off against the other, and, in the end, the prices we should have paid would have been far higher than we shall have to pay now.
The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton said that the Agreement was not as good as it might have been, and alleged a weakness on the part of the Ministry in negotiating it; he said they were not strong enough in their negotiations. He said that the Argentine representatives walked away with what they wanted, and that our people were too weak to do very much about it. Then he went on to talk about the Falkland Islands, and what the Argentine are doing there. He reminded us that we wanted some sterner stuff to deal with the Argentine Government, and said that that sterner stuff was the British Navy. How can he hope to get a good basis for trading relationships with the Argentine when he threatens them with force——

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I hope the hon. Member will not continue along that line, as it is right away from the Estimates.

Mr. Sparks: I was replying to the hon. Member who raised the point.

Mr. Kirkwood: A very good reply.

Mr. Sparks: I thought the statement made by the hon. Member for Thirsk and

Malton ought to be answered, but I will not pursue it. I feel sure that in our future relations with the Argentine Government we shall proceed on a basis which will lead us to expect that we can secure their co-operation in any future trading agreements which we may wish to enter into with them.
I would like to re-emphasise one or two other points which have been made in the Debate. One of them is the vital importance of food supplies to our people. In view of all the problems with which we are faced, we must, by every means in our power, seek to achieve the maximum supply of food for the people. In the great cities, like London and the provincial cities, this problem is still very serious, and is one which worries the housewife more than any other. However, despite all the difficulties, the food Position is improving; it is definitely not so bad as it was some months ago. Although there is a certain amount of queueing, there is not so much as hitherto, and we are all glad to see the increased supplies of fruit and vegetables in the shops. I am satisfied that my right hon. Friend is pursuing the right course.
When we examine the Anglo-Argentine Agreement and see the quantities of foodstuffs which are coming into this country—and that is only one of the many trade agreements which the Government are making—I am certain that the Government are laying the foundation for a better supply of foodstuffs for our people in the future. I hope and trust that they will pursue that line, and will always have, as I am sure they will, a desire to see that our people are adequately fed, and that we can get into the country the maximum supply of food. If the Government can achieve an improvement in the food supplies for the nation, they will receive the approbation of everybody in the country. I commend the Anglo-Argentine Agreement to the Committee because I am satisfied that it is welcomed by the people of the country, not only for the terms of the Agreement itself, but for the improvement to our food position, to which the Agreement very largely contributes.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I cannot follow the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) in congratulating the Minister on


this Agreement, for the simple reason that it is extremely difficult to know whether or not it is a good Agreement. I should first like to add my formal complaint to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Mahon (Mr. Turton), in saying that nearly a half of the money spent by this country cannot be properly inspected by this House of Commons; so far, the money spent on defence cannot be inspected, and so far, the details of the money spent on food cannot be given. However, I can congratulate the hon. Member for Acton on being so naive as to congratulate the Minister of Food on a deal of which we have not sufficient details to enable us properly to judge.
How far is this deal for meat supplies from the Argentine likely to help us after the nine or 12 months, when the present quantity of meat has run out? That is an extremely important question. It is impossible to divide the various deals we have made with the Argentine, because obviously the production and consumption of meat is not intermittent, but must go on. For a few moments I shall address myself to what has happened, and what the future of our meat trade with the Argentine is likely to be, in view of the recently concluded Agreement.
We come up against a very grievous problem. Here, I must differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) and the hon. Member for Acton, by saying that the joint effect of bulk buying and bulk selling organisations is, generally, disastrous to food production. Put simply, what is happening is that the farmers in Argentina are being paid 50 centavo a kilo for meat which is being sold to us at 88 centavo a kilo, plus whatever part of the £10 million is allowed to the Argentines. It stands to reason that the great growth and upward trend of which those two hon. Members spoke, and those glorious arrangements which would lead to further and greater production, are just "baloney." There is a grave danger that, far from increasing production, this fantastic impact of the right hon. Gentleman and his opposite number Senor Miranda, the two devil's advocates in this black market trading of a very special character—supping, I hope, with very long spoons—is not in the least likely to extend and to increase the amount of food production in the world.
Turning to the more specific details of this Agreement, on the face of it, to the simple-minded Argentinian and the simple-minded Englishman there are obvious specific advantages. Our meat is continuing to be invoiced here at the same price as it was invoiced at in the 1946 Agreement. It is being invoiced here at something of the order of 8d. or 9d. a 1b., plus, of course, this mysterious £10 million, which is going no one knows exactly where. As hon. Members know, under the former Agreement we bought 83 per cent. of the Argentine meat surplus, which meant that 17 per cent, was disposable elsewhere by the Argentine Government. Under the new Agreement considerably more than 17 per cent. will be disposed of.
What is not happening, of course, as the hon. Member for Acton suggested, is that marginal prices are coming down. We are buying meat at this mysterious price—this main market price—and at the same time it is perfectly possible for the right hon. Gentleman to say that we are buying well below the world price for Argentine meat, because there are several small purchases of meat of 1000 tons here and r,000 tons there, which are fetching the most fabulous prices—and naturally fetching the most fabulous prices—of 2s. 6d. and 3s. 6d. a kilo, while we are paying 1s. 6d. or is. 7d. on the invoice. That is normal enough, but it is nothing of which to be proud.
The point is that money is not going to the farmer, but is again going to this organisation—the rather more powerful opposite number of the Minister of Food in the Argentine. When the right hon. Gentleman says that we buy well below the world price, he means that we are buying the bulk of those small marginal surpluses that cannot be disposed of at much higher prices than we can afford. One only trades in world prices of Argentine meat if one trades in the world market. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is very well safeguarded from attack by saying "Well, of course, the world price for Argentine meat is 3s. 6d. a kilo." That, again, is complete "baloney." At the same time, the Minister is safeguarded in this country from informing those other persons from whom we do buy meat, of the price at which we are buying. He is able to say that we buy it at a secret price, and to puzzle farmers in, say,


Australia or Canada, or even on the British home market; while Senor Miranda is able to say to his farmers, "I have got this extra £10 million. You may get some of it one day, boys." From both sides, this type of black pact seems, on the face of it, fairly satisfactory.

Mr. Sparks: Is the hon. Member blaming the Minister of Food for the fact that Senor Miranda will not pass on to the producer the increased marginal price?

Mr. Fraser: If the hon. Member will let me continue, I was intending to try to develop that point in a moment. The 1946 Agreement, as far as meat is concerned, as we look back on it, was undoubtedly, from the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman as against Senor Miranda, a considerable or rather comparative triumph. Here, I should like posthumously, as it were, to congratulate the Minister of Food, or whoever it was at that time, on having pulled off that 1946 Agreement. The point is—and this is another extraordinary result which eventuates from this clash of State trading organisations—that Senor Miranda and the Argentine trading organisation lost very large sums of money on the 1946 Agreement. They lost money because the right hon. Gentleman's Department did not buy the meat offals—the fats, hides and chemical manures. As a result, there was a slump in the price of these hides and other things. That was a warning to Senor Miranda, and that is why this time we have been asked to pay a much higher price. This £10 million is largely to make up for the losses which Senor Miranda incurred on the 1946 Agreement.
This type of trading gets us into fantastic complications. It seems that both Senor Miranda and the right hon. Gentleman have been losers. We, not having bought or received the fats, offals, hides, chemical manures and bones, are now having to make up the losses of the Argentine Government because of their failure to sell them. The hon. Member for Acton has said that it was impossible for this country to dictate to Senor Miranda and to the Argentine Government, and that bonuses should be paid to the farmers in the Argentine to produce more meat. That is precisely what was done in 1946. In 1946, £5 million was paid, which led to a considerable increase in production,

as it led to a 12 per cent. increase of price to the farmer. Not only that, but the farmers and agricultural interests were in on the negotiations for the 1946 and 1947 Agreements. If one looks at the papers, it will be seen that the Agreement in 1946 was signed by, amongst others, the Minister of Agriculture, Senor Elordi, whereas the 1948 Agreement was signed by the Foreign Minister, Senor Bramuglia. It seems that this time we were not nearly so tough in our negotiations for meat as we were in 1946. I maintain that it would have been possible for us to be more tough. After all, we were giving away a great deal. I am not referring in particular to the railways, but to the financial agreement by which we did a good turn to Senor Miranda.
Let us see how the picture develops. Immediately after the signing of the 1948 Agreement, prices on the meat market in South America rose from between 48 and 5o centavos to 50 to 58 centavos. That was generally supposed to be the result of a telegram indicating that £10 million was to be spent by this country in aiding production inside the Argentine. That did not happen, and prices are now back again, and they are likely to stay there. How does all this affect our meat supply for the future? I maintain there is a great danger that the Argentine will not be so interested in selling us meat on the basis of the agreements we have worked out. They may well turn away from us to increasing their sales of meat within South America. That is where the Government of the Argentine are inclined to turn. When I was with the Parliamentary Commission in South America, there was considerable talk about this, and General Peron himself stated in an interview that they would soon be consuming all their own meat in South America. I do not believe that is probable, but I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that they are already consuming between 7o and 8o per cent. of their own meat.
There is a danger that we have been outwitted in these conferences held with South American interests. I am convinced that when they come face to face with the immovable object and the irresistible force of the right hon. Gentleman and Senor Miranda, with Senor Miranda burning incense of linseed oil to his own gods, the only conceivable attitude for us is to be equally tough. I suggest that on


this occasion the right hon. Gentleman was not as tough as he should have been. I suggest that the following things might have been done. First of all, we should have insisted that all goods were paid c.i.f. and not f.o.b. I say that because one of the great holdups is shortage of shipping and turnround of the shipping in the docks. As the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, the turnround of shipping at Buenos Aires and Rosario is a very long business indeed. Secondly, it would be much more advantageous to us to purchase the whole animal. I gather from what the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has said, that we are now moving in that direction. I believe that this should have been done before.
Lastly, I believe it would have been possible for us to insist on the farmers in the Argentine being paid a bonus on production to equalise the price which is being paid of 50 centavos to the farmers as against the price which is being paid to the Government of 88 centavos, plus whatever part of the £10 million we have offered for the meat. If that is not done, there will be a decline in production and the Argentine will sell to Chile and internally, as on both fronts the farmers are allowed more profit, with the result that next year it will be found that the negotiations are much more difficult to resume. Instead of having cornered the market, we have cornered only a part of it. The prices in those marginal areas, such as France and Belgium to whom we used to sell Argentine meat, will have gone up. There will be no guarantee that the producer is paid more to increase production, and there is the further danger of a leakage to Chile and to the neighbouring States.
To conclude, here is the typical loss and confusion which arise when the right hon. Gentleman is State trading and bulk buying from a bulk seller. If the worst comes to the worst, he must get in touch with these other people who are bulk buying and bulk trading. The final folly and delusion of this State trading system is that it will eventually mean that all the countries in Europe will have to gang up to buy from Senor Miranda at the price they fix. There is the danger that this system will lead to that result. That is really one of the most fantastic conceptions possible. But it is a remedy we

may well be forced to adopt. I hope that I have demonstrated to some extent that this deal will not lead to an increase in meat production in the Argentine. On the contrary, it will lead to a diminution and leakage of Argentine meat elsewhere. If next year we have to approach Senor Miranda, we shall undoubtedly get the worst of what is already a poor deal, through the lack of firmness of the right hon. Gentleman.

5.3o p.m.

Mrs. Jean Mann: I do not want to speak at length, because I do not think the Minister of Food requires anything more than the result of the Paisley election to encourage him on his path. That election raged for 10 days on the question of food.

The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot find anything in the Estimates about the election.

Mrs. Mann: Neither, Mr. Beaumont, with all respect, do I find Senor Miranda's name in the Estimate. The housewives were in the majority at that election. There were housewives' meetings for to days, and they gave a very effective vote of confidence to the Minister. I have something to say on the Estimates. Usually, I am critical in this House, but I say to the Minister that, from one end of the country to the other, there is no difficulty whatever in defending his policy with the housewives. As a matter of fact, I often think that it has been much too successful for our opponents.
I am, however, going to put forward a little criticism about something that is very irritating—something that hon. Gentlemen opposite will not understand, because it is the irritation of private enterprise still pursuing the profit motive and upsetting the arrangements of the Minister. I think that my criticism would relate to wages, salaries and expenses. In spite of the enforcement officers, there is in Glasgow a very large black market. In the whole of the city there are times when it is impossible to find onions, and even children under 18 cannot find bananas. It is most disturbing to have members of a family, walking with a huge bar, of onions and bananas, say to one," Why do you go to the shops? You will never get them in the shops." I know one woman who bought shallots at 1s. 6d. per pound when she could get


five big Spanish onions at 2 lb. for 1s. 6d. in the black market.
All the women in Glasgow know the stances of the spivs. Spiv stance No. 1 is Maxwell Street and Argyll Street, and anyone who wants bananas will get them there at 6s. per dozen. Spiv stance No. 2 is Howard Street and Jamaica Street. There one can get onions at 1s. 6d. for 2 lb., but there is never 2 lb. in a 1s. 6d. bag. One can get table apples there when they are unprocurable in the shops. Spiv stance No. 3 is at the top of Buchanan Street and work there begins at 5 o'clock at night, when the workers are rushing to the bus station. It is often intercepted, and then makes its way to Spiv stance No. 4 in Dundas Lane, which runs between Buchanan Street and Queens Street, to catch the professional classes, who are charged 10s. per dozen for bananas.
It is irritating in the extreme to know that in spite of the protests that I and others have made these stances continue. The police intercept them on occasion. Two policemen went to No. I stance one day and said, "How much are you selling these for?" They immediately dropped the price, and said "three shillings per dozen." The policemen shouted, "Come here, housewives, take your choice. Bananas are going at 3s. per dozen." The whole barrow-load was sold in less than half-an-hour. Then there are the enforcement officers——

The Deputy-Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady's interesting account, but there is nothing in the Estimate dealing with enforcement officers.

Mrs. Mann: I thought, Mr. Beaumont, that salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Food would relate to enforcement officers. I must ask if there are not salaries paid to enforcement officers.

The Deputy-Chairman: Not on this Vote. On the main Estimate it would be quite in Order.

Mrs. Mann: I am looking at what was issued to me—Supplementary Estimate, page three, Class X Ministry of Food—which states:
Supplementary Estimate of the amount required in the year ending 31st March, 1948, to pay the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Food.

Does not that include enforcement officers?

The Deputy-Chairman: I must direct the hon. Lady's attention to the survey which deals with the amount of the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. James Hudson: Further to that point of Order, Mr. Beaumont. May I call your attention to the fact that your predecessor in the Chair during the speech of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) gave as his Ruling that the whole of the concerns of the Ministry of Food would come under review during this Debate? It was a very wide intervention that was made by the hon. Member for Louth, and most of us were expecting that we would have a similar opportunity.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: As I was responsible for asking for the last Ruling, Mr. Beaumont, may I say that I understood your predecessor to rule that if there was any change in the Supplementary Estimate either upwards or downwards compared with the original Estimate, that was a matter for Debate; but he was not asked to rule, and did not rule, that we could discuss matters that remain unchanged in the Supplementary Estimates.

The Deputy-Chairman: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for informing me of what took place. Obviously, I was not present when the Ruling was given. I am tied down to the fact that we are discussing the Supplementary, Estimates, and, therefore, must deal with what is on the Supplementary Estimates.

Mrs. Mann: May I draw attention to the list—
Anticipated savings on the following subheads:—A.—Salaries,etc.,£92,000 ….

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Lady cannot discuss savings on this Vote.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of Order. I can understand your difficulties, Mr. Beaumont, but the discussion has taken a very wide range, and if it is right for Members on the Opposition Benches to discuss the difficulties of food supplies from South America, surely it is in Order for the hon. Lady to discuss the point which she is trying to make?

The Deputy-Chairman: That does not arise at all.

Mrs. Mann: I apologise for not having acquainted myself with the tricky points of procedure. I should like to go on to say, apart from the salaries, that the distribution of these commodities in Glasgow is really disgraceful. The salaries and expenses of the enforcement officers ought to be cut off right now, because they are not enforcing the Minister's orders at all.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. Baldwin: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) into the intricacies of shopping in Glasgow, but I must congratulate her on her very full knowledge of where to shop in the black market.

Mrs. Mann: Would the hon. Member supplement or amplify that statement? Is he inferring that I have ever shopped in the black market?

Mr. Baldwin: Most decidedly I inferred nothing of the sort, but I congratulated the hon. Lady on the knowledge which she has obtained on this matter. However, I do not intend to pursue that point. There are two points which confuse hon. Members and the people in the country generally, and I hope the Minister will deal with them. The first one is, are there foodstuffs available in the world? The second is, if these foodstuffs are available, can we pay for them? My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) made it quite clear that in the Argentine there are feedingstuffs available. The Chancellor of the Exchequer a few days ago said we had secured all that he required, which inferred surely that there must be still more available?
If those feedingstuffs are available, the next point is, are we able to pay for them? The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) dealt with the point whether we could pay for them, and I am going to suggest that we can. We have recently contracted an agreement with Holland to send to them £70 million worth of goods, including coal and steel, and in return for that £70 million worth of goods we are taking back £28 million worth of agricultural products, including 100 tons of glasshouse grown strawberries. We recently bought 10,000 tons of carrots from Denmark,

whilst at the same time our farmers could not sell the carrots which they had available. The two most important trading commodities in the world today are coal and steel, and they are the two commodities which either the Argentine or Russia would be very pleased to get from us. I want to suggest that instead of sending steel and coal to the Continent to bring back agricultural products which we can grow in this country, we should send those two commodities to the Argentine or to Russia and bring back coarse grain. This would enable our farmers to get on with the job which they want to do.
Our pig houses and poultry houses are empty today because the farmers have not got the feedingstuffs, and yet the Minister of Food is making contracts all over the world for eggs, bacon and poultry. The whole process means that the Minister of Food and the Minister of Agriculture are not co-operating. In the recent White Paper on our economic position the target has been laid down for an increased production from the land of this country of £100 million before 1952. That is chicken feed as far as the farmers of this country are concerned, but we cannot attain that target unless there is co-operation between the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Agriculture. I would like the Government to amalgamate those two Ministries, and make the Ministry of Food subordinate to the Ministry of Agriculture. Every country in the world seems to be able to produce the manufactured article in the way of bacon and eggs except this country, and the job of the Minister of Food seems to be to buy all over the world and prevent his colleague the Minister of Agriculture increasing the output of this country.
Quite seriously, I suggest that it is about time we started trading our coal and steel for the coarse grains with which we could produce bacon, eggs and poultry. We could produce every egg, every bit of bacon and every bit of poultry which are necessary to meet the home demand if we could get the feedingstuffs for our farmers. To say that we have not the means of getting them does not in my mind seem sense. We are trading these two commodities at the present time for something which our farmers can grow here. Last year we imported lettuce from the Continent at


the same time as our farmers were ploughing their lettuce into the land. I would suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that he considers altering his methods.

5.46 p.m.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I say a word about the main subject which has been raised so far in this Debate, which is the Argentine Agreement. I will deal first with the speech of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). He began with a point with which I can agree although there was little else in his speech with which I can agree. That first point was that he wished that these White Papers and other State documents were put out in uniform weights and measures, and so save us from the arithmetic at which he and I both have some difficulty. I hope that that suggestion has been noted in official quarters.
He went on to ask about the unshipped balances from the last agreements which we had with the Argentine. As I think he saw, it is quite true that those unshipped balances are contained in the financial statement of the amount and value of foodstuffs which we anticipate will be shipped during the currency of this new agreement, but they are not contained in the schedule which appears on page 4 of the Agreement of the quantities which are new purchases, and, therefore, additional to any unshipped balances. That leads me to the next major point which he made. He asked whether these quantities put down in the schedule were necessarily exhaustive, and all that we were going to buy in the Argentine during this period.

Mr. Turton: Of these commodities?

Mr. Strachey: Of these commodities or of any other for that matter. That is a most important point which is germane to remarks made by a number of speakers. The answer to it is that these are not necessarily exhaustive, and if the hon. Member turns to Article 3 of the Agreement he will see that stated in so many words. I will read the Article:
The Government of the United Kingdom and the Argentine Government agree that the commodities and quantities set out in the above-mentioned Schedules are not necessarily exhaustive and may be supplemented during 1948.

That is a vital point which is laid down in the Agreement, and, if I may say so with respect, vitiates a great deal of the argument which the hon. Member put before us. These quantities, in other words, are quantities which we thought, all things considered, it was wise and prudent for us to purchase in this particular market at this particular moment. That must be quite without prejudice to the quantities which we purchase in this market at other moments or in other markets at this moment.
Therefore, it would be wrong to suggest that because there might be further quantities of some of these foodstuffs available in the Argentine, we are necessarily estopped from purchasing them, or that those commodities that we have purchased there recently or mean to purchase in the near future from other sources, are the total quantities and that this is the last of the items that we shall purchase in the Argentine. These remarks are very relevant to the complaints which were made about bulk buying. The hon. Member told us that if we came along with a huge order to well-organised sellers such as the Argentine Government and put all our cards on the table, buying everything we wanted, we were apt to pay prices that were too high. That might or might not be the case.
In those circumstances we have not done that. We have bought particular quantities, not by any means all that are available in the market in most cases. It would have been unwise to buy all the food available at this moment in those circumstances. Therefore, it is not the case at all that under the present buying arrangements it is necessary to buy, for example, our whole animal feeding commodities in one transaction. We have not done that in this case and do not necessarily mean to do it in other cases.
Then the hon. Member complained that, in contrast to private enterprise, we did not divulge the prices at which we bought. When private firms purchased these commodities before the war, did they at once rush into print and publish the prices at which they had bought? I think not. Mr. J. V. Rank, for example, made large purchases of grains from the Argentine and elsewhere then, on his firm's account, as he now makes them on the nation's account. He no more published his prices when he was making


purchases on his firm's account than he does now, when he is purchasing on the account of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. H. Fraser: There are market prices.

Mr. Strachey: There were, and there are, market prices, but the particular prices paid by particular buyers in particular transactions are not divulged. These buyers were not accustomed to divulge their prices when they bought on their own account. That is the reason why they are so insistent now that they should not be urged to divulge the prices when they are buying upon Government account. That is the reason they give.
The hon. Member said he was getting the impression that we were very bad shoppers. He used a long series of epithets and said how careless we were when we were buying. It is not so much that he gets that impression but that he is sedulously giving that impression and is very anxious to give it. I do not think it does us very much harm. As he was speaking I rather wished that he would give that impression in some of the markets from which we have purchased. Speeches like his might serve a useful purpose. If he went out and made that speech in Buenos Aires or Ottawa, he might convince the organisations which have sold to us in those markets that we paid very generous prices, and that would be a very useful service.

Mr. Turton: On this side of the House, unlike hon. Members of the right hon. Gentleman's party, we do not run our own country down when we are abroad. [Interruption.]

Mr. Strachey: I very much wish that the hon. Member's colleagues, whose names have just been mentioned on this side of the House, were here to hear that remark of his. More outrageous cases of running down this country abroad than those of which those two Members were guilty, I hardly know.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In a broadcast, on one occasion.

Mr. Strachey: Yes, in a broadcast on one occasion, too. If the hon. Member would make the type of speech that he made today in those markets, he would, at any rate by accident, do this country a service by convincing the sellers to us

that we paid them generous prices. We have paid them fair prices. The hon. Member would find it very difficult to convince them that the prices have been too high at any rate. He would find their view of the matter to be that the prices had been very much on the low side. It would be of considerable use to the Ministry of Food if the view of the prices paid which the hon. Member expressed could be emphasised very strongly in the capital cities I have mentioned and in other places from which we have bought.
The hon. Member then made various points about the supply of maize that had been available from the Argentine in different years. He mentioned 1946 and said that while the other countries which maintained private buying in 1946 had been able to buy plenty of maize, we had only obtained derisory quantities from the Argentine. The situation in 1946 was bad. The world was so short of cereals, that countries of the world were under the heaviest possible international pressure to refrain from buying coarse grains for animal feeding purposes. The hon. Member mentioned South Africa. It is true that they did make a purchase of grain from the Argentine but, to feed to their livestock? Not at all. They made that purchase of coarse grain because they had an appalling drought and were suffering from famine, and they used the grain for direct human consumption by their native population. It did not go to South African chickens.

Mr. Turton: Then why did the South African Government take off the control of poultry feedingstuffs at the end of 1946?

Mr. Strachey: I cannot answer for the South African Government, but that purchase of grain was made. If the hon. Member will look it up he will see that it was made because the South African Government were able to show to an international organisation that it could not feed its people with grain for human consumption. If hon. Members are anxious to throw doubt on the word of that Dominion Government I shall be sorry. I accepted the word of that Government and so did the international organisation to whom the application was made. That was why that purchase was made by South Africa, and by other governments at that time.
Then the hon. Member expanded upon the quantities of maize which he said were available in the Argentine today. I think it is true that when the new maize harvest is reaped, as it will be in a few weeks, there will be large quantities of maize available in the Argentine. We bought considerable quantities, about 1,200,000 tons. Further quantities may well be available but we cannot buy them all. We cannot monopolise the export of maize from the Argentine. It may be that the market will become less a seller's market and more a buyer's market. That is quite possible, and it is even likely. It is not impossible that larger additional quantities of coarse grains—maize, barley or the like, will become available there or elsewhere.
The same considerations which I have just mentioned apply to the other commodities with which the hon. Member dealt, such as oil cake and various linseed products. We have bought at this moment the particular quantities which we thought were the right ones which we could afford and which it was wise to buy at this time. That does not in the least mean that we may not at some other time and in other circumstances which may be more favourable, buy additional quantities from there or elsewhere.
I come now to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Mellish). It is quite true that we keep sugar in stock for long periods—not large quantities, but small quantities. Sugar is a commodity which does not degenerate, and I can assure my hon. Friend that when on some occasions we keep reserve stocks of sugar in warehouses for long periods, it does not mean that sugar is wasted or that it is unnecessary or inadvisable to do so or that it is not most carefully inspected to see whether there is any danger of degeneration.
I come now to the speech of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) who was kind enough to refrain—I am not speaking ironically—from blaming me for the creation of the present world food shortage. He even refrained from making me directly responsible for the fact that the population of the world had gone up by 200 million. He is quite right; I played no significant part in that, at any rate. It is quite true that the world situation is as he put it forward from his

extracts from numerous official publications, and I am grateful to him for emphasising that this is the background of the world situation against which all of us and every country in the world have to operate and to attempt to feed its people adequately today.
He asked me to devote myself to telling the people of this country that that was so and to explain to them that we can only obtain those quantities of food which are available by selling our exports to pay for them. We certainly endeavour to do that. I should have thought that one of the criticisms that could hardly be levelled against this Government at the present moment was of failure to put the economic facts of the situation before the people of this country. We have just done so in a document which the whole Press has greeted as being of a stark frankness and which has given a wealth of detail and example of the whole economic situation of the country, not only of the balance of payments, such as no Government has ever before put in front of its people—certainly no Government in the history of this country.
The hon Member was right in saying that if the terms of trade turned against us we must send more tons of steel, coal and the like for every ton of foodstuffs which we import. The terms of trade have turned not enormously but appreciably against us in past years. There is some hope and some possibility that we have reached the worst point—the nadir—of that tendency. As we know, there has been a significant—at least, we trust and believe that it is significant—fall in the prices of certain basic foodstuffs in the United States, which are apt to govern the world prices, in recent weeks and months, and we hope and believe that there is a chance that the terms of trade may, at any rate, cease moving in the wrong direction. I agree with the hon. Member most sincerely that we must realise that until and unless the terms of trade turn back again in a more favourable direction to us, the very utmost export effort is needed from the workers and employers alike—the employers' effort is very important and sacrifices are needed from them as well as from their forces of workpeople—in order to secure our supply of foodstuffs today.
The hon. Member exhorted me most eloquently to say all this. Goodness


knows, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said it frequently enough, but no doubt it cannot be said too often. In return, I would ask the hon. Member to exhort his leaders to say much the same thing. While he was making those exhortations, I could not help having recalled to my mind certain statements made in the past six months or year by one of my predecessors in this office, not my immediate predecessor, but Lord Woolton. He took a very different line, and told us that any deficiencies of foodstuffs we had in this country were entirely due to the mismanagement of my humble self or the Government as a whole. He told us nothing of the terms of trade or the effort needed for exports to purchase our food or still less of the world food shortage. While I welcome the hon. Member's exhortations to me, I suggest that he might exhort his own leaders to go out and do likewise——

Mr. Osborne: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, may I have answers to the specific questions I put to him? I asked about the trade deals in regard to coal.

Mr. Strachey: The hon. Member asked whether we sold our coal to the Argentine in this deal at the full world price. The answer is, "Yes, we did." The hon. Member also wanted to know whether this one million tons of coal was the limit to our export to the Argentine. Certainly not. As Article III, which I read out, says:
… the commodities and quantities set out in the above-mentioned Schedules are not necessarily exhaustive.

Mr. Osborne: Then if we had supplied more coal, we could have got more food? Am I correct on that?

Mr. Strachey: It is not a question of whether we could have supplied more coal. It is quite possible that we shall supply more than one million tons of coal. All that the Agreement lays down is that we have an obligation to the Argentine to supply one million tons of coal, and that we must fulfil; but if they wish to purchase, as I think they very well may, and we have available, as I also think we very well may—thanks to the efforts of the miners—more than one million tons of coal, it can go up. I believe the prewar figure was more in the nature of two million tons. It is quite possible that this year or next we can approximate to that

higher figure. As the hon. Member says, that will be most helpful in financing our purchases of these and any other foodstuffs we buy. I am entirely in agreement with that.
The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) devoted his remarks chiefly to the question of the meat prices. His main complaint, and it is an understandable one, was that in the case of meat—and it is true also of cereals—the arrangements of the Argentine Government are such that only a proportion of the price which they receive is passed on to the producer. He must realise that it is not in our power to modify the internal arrangements of the Argentine Government. He seemed to think that somehow or other if we bought by private enterprise instead of bulk purchase that would induce the Argentine Government to pass on——

Mr. H. Fraser: No.

Mr. Strachey: Unless I am wrong, that is what the hon. Member suggested—that somehow or other the Argentine Government would pass on a greater proportion of these prices if we bought from them through ordinary trade channels. I simply cannot follow him there. I see no reason to suppose that Señor Miranda and the Argentine Government should modify the economic arrangements which they like and which suit them simply because we purchase in a different method.

Mr. Fraser: My point was that I was asking the right hon. Gentleman to get tougher with them. Obviously, if we are dealing with a bulk selling country, bulk purchase is one of the methods, but I pointed out that if there had been neither bulk selling nor bulk buying we would have been in a better position.

Mr. Strachey: That is highly hypothetical. These Estimates do not cover Senor Miranda's policies but extend only to ours. I could not, therefore, enter into that. Certainly, if we had abandoned our organised buying we should have had far less power to influence the conditions of the transactions and not far more. That is the only position I take.
The hon. Member then went on to refer to the Meat Agreement of 1946, which we call the Turner-Miranda Agreement because it was negotiated by Sir Henry Turner on behalf of this country and Senor Miranda. The hon. Member called


that Agreement a triumph. It was interesting and pleasing to me to hear that, because I recall the things it was called at the time when it was made, which were anything but a triumph. However, as he said, he called it posthumously a triumph. That Agreement, which was negotiated in the early months of my period of office, was considered by hon. Members at the time anything but a triumph, but it is true to say that, in the light of after events, it was certainly not a bad piece of bargaining on the part of the buyers of this country. The hon. Member suggested that the Argentine sellers actually lost money over that Agreement. I hope, and I do not think, that is quite true, but certainly it was not an Agreement which confirms the charges of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Mahon (Mr. Turton), that our buyers are slow and easy-going people, always overborne and always getting the worst of the agreement. If there is any question of the Argentine sellers actually losing money on that Agreement, it hardly looks as if we were negotiating on that basis.

Mr. H. Fraser: We are paying for it now.

Mr. Strachey: I know the price of meat, like the price of many things in the world, has gone up in the last two years. That is a fact we all have to face, but if the hon. Member examines the new Agreement, he will find there is no suggestion of retrospective payment in respect of any earlier agreement.
I should be out of Order if I referred to the tips to my enforcement officers mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann), and I pass at once to the speech made by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin). I agree entirely with him that there is no better use for our scarce exports—he instanced steel and coal—than to make these agreements, and he gave the example of the Argentine and Russia for the purchase of essential foodstuffs for this country. That is just what we have done. We have made an agreement with Russia for a large quantity of coarse grain. Under the Agreement which we are discussing this afternoon, we have a contract with the Argentine for a large quantity of coarse grains, and many other foodstuffs as well. Of course we have had to pay for these

things in part by coal and by steel, and I agree with him that in the present circumstances that is perhaps the best use we could make of these very precious exports, of which we have only a limited quantity today. That is precisely why I commend to the Committee this Agreement, the financial provisions of which we dealt with more fully when we discussed it previously.

Mr. Baldwin: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Russia and the Argentine. I specifically mentioned the deal with Holland, and suggested that we sent our coal and steel to Holland to bring back exactly the things we can produce in this country.

Mr. Strachey: We made a deal with Holland, too, in which we purchased some foodstuffs—cheese, for example. That does not seem to me an unwise thing to do. [HON. MEMBERS: "Strawberries."] We have made an agreement with Poland in which we have purchased a great many eggs, not nearly as many as we could use, but at any rate a contribution to our supplies. But these argeements, which I wish were bigger, are subsidiary to these two main agreements with Russia and the Argentine because those are the places from which we can get coarse grains as well as other foodstuffs in large quantities. Therefore, there is really nothing between the hon. Member and myself, and I ask him to become a convert to this Agreement, the financial provisions of which I believe are fair, sound to both parties and, on the food side, the transaction is just the kind he mentioned, by which we have supplied many of the goods which the Argentine so urgently needs, while she has supplied many of those foodstuffs and other raw materials which we so urgently need.

Orders of the Day — AFRICAN GROUNDNUTS SCHEME

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would like to pass from South America to East Africa and bring the Committee straight away to Subhead J, the "Production of Groundnuts in East and Central Africa." This, at least, has the almost unique distinction of being strictly in Order. That comment implies no reflection upon the Chair. The Minister of Food, when dealing with the Argentine Meat Agreement, drew a rosy picture of the possibilities of future


Argentine Agreements. Here, while the Debate ranges over East Africa, we shall consider the consequences of an over-rosy picture that was drawn about the African groundnuts scheme some months ago, and the consequences to the taxpayer of that over optimism.
The progress report of this scheme up to 3oth November, 1947, issued recently, shows that £4,250,000 has already been spent on that venture. That, however, is not the whole story. In Subhead J of these Supplementary Estimates we are now asked to provide for the year ending this month a further sum of £3,400,000, making in all £7,900,000 wanted up to the end of this month. The Committee will remember that, when this scheme was commended to the country as a way out of our desperate fat shortage, we were told that it would cost in all some £25 million, but now we see that by the end of this month we shall have spent about one-third of the whole sum which we were told originally it would cost. Yet only a fraction of the projected area has been cleared, and only one-half of the cleared area has been planted. It is a sobering thought to a country, not the least of whose difficulties are financial, that one-third of the money has been spent but only one-three-hundredth of the area has been planted, and it is essential that at this moment the House of Commons should address itself to the stark economic facts of the great African difficulties that are bound to confront this scheme.
Over three million acres remain to be planted and it is true, of course, that the total cost before we have finished with this scheme will be absolutely enormous, so the Committee ought to consider what we have to do about it. It may be said that the £4 million spent by last November was largely on capital equipment, but I shall come later to the fact that, under the particular conditions of Africa where there are all sorts of unknown problems to contend with, the wastage in the machinery already bought is such that no prudent person can really regard the heavy expenditure on machinery as being safely a capital cost.
I would also like to draw the attention of the Committee to this point, and to ask for guidance from the right hon. Gentleman or the hon. Lady on it: when commending this scheme to a private association, the Royal Empire Society—a body of

patriotic people which has done an enormous amount to help forward Imperial co-operation—Mr. Samuel said that the cost of this scheme was based on what he called "Mr. Dalton's approved interest rates of 2½ per cent. per annum." That has all gone now. We heard this afternoon about Local Loans rising to 3 per cent., and we would like some information as to the price that will have to be paid by the Corporation, which has to run this body on strictly businesslike lines, for any loans that it may get.
Further, when we first heard about this scheme, we were told in September, 1946, in the original Blue Book, that the cost per ton f.o.b. of the production of groundnuts in East Africa would be £14 5s. 6d. Shortly afterwards, the right hon. Gentleman said that the production cost would be £14 5s. 6d. per ton and he has said that today's price for groundnuts is £32, giving us a margin of approximately £17, which, applied to 600,000 tons, will mean a saving to this country of £10 million. Nearly all those estimates have disappeared and can no longer be called in aid. We must now know what the cost of production is going to be. Expert opinion, of people who have come back from that part of the word, believes that with great good fortune and enormous skill the period of harvesting this quickly perishable crop might be spread over 20 days. The combines might each cover 10 acres a day, or 200 acres in the season. Therefore, it is doubtful whether any one combine could produce more than 70 tons in a year, which means—and hon. Members with farming interests will understand me—that the cost of combining groundnuts in East Africa will be about five times the cost of combining corn in this country. One expert opinion has already said that it will cost more to combine the groundnuts alone, without taking any other costs into account, than the original estimate which was given to the House by the right hon. Gentleman, only a few months ago.
I have no wish, and I would be out of Order if I did so, to discuss the merits of the whole scheme, but this Supplementary Estimate enables us once more to see this venture in true perspective and not through the spectacles of party propaganda. If it is going to cost £25 million—and who could now possibly believe that it will cost anything like as little as that?


—and produces groundnuts to the value of £9½ million a year, then, on the same assumption the capital value of West African groundnuts produced under private enterprise must be three times as great—£75 million.
At the time of the original Debate we gave our support to this project provided that the whole economy of East Africa is not disturbed, that existing undertakings are not penalized and, above all, that peasant proprietorship in Africa should remain one of our chief aims. We should not find that we had created an entirely wage-earning community in a country that should include peasant proprietors.
We have noticed from the Estimates that a great deal more money is wanted for machinery. I think I am entitled at this stage to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the money now being spent and asked for, the cost of capital equipment, including railway construction and clearing operations, is to provide equipment in East Africa for which existing undertakers in East and West Africa alike are urgently asking. The Committee should see that, in drawing up a design to make this scheme a great success, we are not penalising existing undertakings, on whom also we depend to meet our balance of payments and to feed our own and other people.
When I heard that part of the figure of the cost of capital equipment included Bedford motor lorries, I, a Bedfordshire Member, was pleased at the thought that these vehicles were going out to be used in the groundnuts scheme. But I remembered also a letter which I saw only a week ago from a sisal planter in that same part of the world, in which he said:
I ordered a Bedford lorry from our local agents, the Central African Company, two years ago, and there is no sign of it yet.
Let us remember that when we are voting this money for this new undertaking.
I gather that responsibility for this scheme passed about a week ago from the United Africa Company to the Corporation, and that operational control was intended to be taken over on 31st March. In anything which I may say about this Supplementary Estimate I would not like to be thought to be unjust, or ungenerous, to the United Africa Company, who are certainly not responsible for the overoptimistic picture drawn in advance; who

are not responsible for the delays in supplying the machinery, and who, the Committee ought to remember, made no claim for remuneration for their services as managing agents, so that the cost this year and in this Estimate, although prodigous, is cost price, and not on a cost-plus basis. Nor would I like to be accused of wishing anything but good fortune to the many Africans and above all, the many Europeans, particularly the latter, who are living under rough and difficult conditions. Nothing could be worse for these people than that false hopes of their enterprise should be aroused in this country; or an impossible task been set them in Africa and then the need for periodic post-mortems forced inevitably on a House of Commons that wants properly to discharge its financial obligations.
We were told in advance that this scheme was going to yield big dividends. That would have been called by the Fabian Society the "Joseph Chamberlain school of Imperialism," but at least we would have had the dividends. Now we have great expenses and we are going anxiously to await the dividends, but no one, after a year's experience, would draw too optimistic a picture. I hope that I may be pardoned for quoting a Latin tag, "Ex Africa semper aliquid novi" or, in other words, "Out of Africa something new always comes." This is quite as true now as it used to be, even though we have got also our own unpredictable Government at home. Although the right hon. Gentleman may know that in Africa the unexpected always happens, this is not what we were told when the scheme was commended.
Now, we have the Supplementary Estimates for £3,400,000 more. The Parliamentary Secretary, in an earlier Debate or in answer to a Question, said that the 1948 crop would yield 50,000 tons. Actually, it is going to be only 4,000 tons. The "Daily Herald" went into rhapsodies about an answer to our fat problems. The hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) talked as if the fats were now almost on the table of housewives in Glasgow. But the housewives in Glasgow, if they listened to a broadcast a few days ago by someone who had come back to this country, would have heard it said of this scheme:
To be quite frank, it would have been better for further clearing had nit the cry 'Nuts at any cost' overruled the better judgment of the men on the spot.


and he added:
The suggested figures are impossible—not enough account was taken of the difficulties.
To our way of thinking, the alarming thing about these confessions and explanations which have now been given is that they cast doubts on the accuracy of all the Estimates which have been given to the public.
The reason for this demand for more money is attributed in the progress report to a number of factors. I will not weary the Committee in going into every one of these but will mention only one or two. These are notably, the delays of the delivery of machinery in England, the delay in unloading owing to port congestion in Africa, and the delay in the Tanganyikan Railways from the port to the sphere of operation. It is our contention that all these difficulties could have been anticipated and that the Government should, and indeed must, have known about them. As for the difficulties in getting machinery, we are asked to vote a great sum of public money now for more machinery.
It should have been realised that machinery is not available here and that it would have to be bought in the United States, and with dollars, and that it is scarce even there. I should like to say in passing that the managing agents, with great ingenuity, have picked up this equipment on the beaches of the Philippines and Honolulu. The machinery is scarce, difficult to get, and expensive in dollars. It is of course subjected to fierce use while out there, inasmuch as it is largely unchartered land, and it is also subject to the not always tender mercies of the African drivers. Two views prevail; some people say, "Give the African the job, and he will finish the tools," and others say that under extraordinary difficulties the Africans are picking up the use of these machines pretty effectively. However, no one could deny that we could not call expenditure on this machinery for the first year's working capital expenditure, for it is most certainly a wasting asset.
Before we vote the money to His Majesty's Government, and while still on the question of machinery, I wish to ask what steps are being taken to get British industry to provide this machinery, in particular the heavy moving equipment and the crawler tractors? A very proper

use for the Overseas Development Corporation would be to finance a great deal of this machinery here, and give a guaranteed order, because it is difficult in advance, without knowing how good the return may be, to expect private undertakings to undertake that task unaided suchwise. As for the second difficulty of transport, the right hon. Gentleman told us that existing rail and harbour facilities in Tanganyika could lift over and above any crop likely before 1950, and the figure of 50,000 tons was mentioned in the Blue Book. We pointed out the difficulties but not much regard was paid to what we said. We also pointed out the inevitable congestion at Dar es Salaam and the competition in transport of other minerals already being worked out there and what is still happening in West Africa—the accumulation of a large proportion of the 1947 crop, when the 1948 crop is still coming along.
As to the difficulties in regard to the Tanganyika Railway, we are now given an illustration of what happens when people working on a nationalised scheme fall out with each other, and no one really knows who is responsible for these difficulties. We have the statement of the "Financial Times" recently when it referred to the "somewhat unedifying squabble" between the Director of the Overseas Food Corporation, which is a State corporation, and the Head of the Tanganyika Railways, which are Government railways. I think I am entitled in his absence to remind the Committee of the comments at the time of passing of the Bill dealing with overseas development of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley), who leads for us on colonial affairs. He made certain observations on which the "Financial Times" has recently made this comment:
Only last November Mr. Oliver Stanley warned the Government of the dangers of friction between rival authorities in a territory. Events seem to be proving him only too accurate a prophet.
As one who always has believed that colonial development schemes should be in the hands of the Colonial Office, and not in the hands of the Food Ministry, I endorse also the "Financial Times" further comment:
Joseph Chamberlain would have known what to do if a newcomer among Departmental officers had presumed to lecture his Department.


Another reason for the disappointments is the stubborn nature of the bush, and the great natural difficulties encountered in clearing and planting the land. Private people have been doing this sort of thing quite a long time, and there is a wealth of experience available if the Government would take it from private people. The right hon. Gentleman said a few weeks ago that no local planting association had had any experience of mechanical clearing. But one large estate in the neighbourhood of these operations has made the statement that there is no type of heavy equipment used for the groundnuts scheme of which they not had considerable experience, and they add:
At no time have we been consulted.
It is perfectly true that the Kongwa area for which this money is now required has proved a very difficult area. But what right have we to assume that the other areas are not just as difficult? They are covered with a different sort of vegetation, but there are bound to be some unexpected snags and difficulties, and I think it is no answer to an English taxpayer or an English housewife to say that the difficulties found in the Kongwa area will be encountered or even surpassed in other areas. There should have been a much more adequate survey of the area before the original estimates were given.
I wish to refer to another aspect of the problem, the problem of native labour. We are being asked for money today for the cost of agricultural operations, including administration and overhead expenses, so it is in Order to make some comment on native labour. We are very glad indeed that there are only very small labour difficulties, and we hope that this will continue. Difficulties are bound to increase as the full labour force of 50,000 is gradually developed. One or two things have emerged. Africans say, "We have enough shillings," but they want something on which to spend the shillings, if we are to get any further effort from them. The whole problem of consumer goods in our Colonial Empire is of the utmost importance.
I hope we shall not introduce too quickly our habits in dealing with each other here in this rather more sophisticated community. I was surprised to see a

report from one unit in East Africa that a native labourer has to receive three letters before he can be dismissed, not one of which he is able to read. While we hope there will be no coercion whatever, in the interests of this scheme of the existing undertakings and the African himself, we hope the dignity of labour will be taught, and people encouraged to earn their living, never forgetting that peasant proprietorship must remain one of our aims in our East African Empire.
I was very interested to see that the scheme has been
explained to local chiefs and recruitment proceeded with their support.
Had there been a private enterprise Government in power and a remark of that kind appeared, that recruitment is proceeding with the support of the chiefs, every sort of dark hint would have been made about the Tory Government using the chiefs to coerce the natives to work in this private monopoly. It is a curious fact that on the very day on which we had the progress report for which the money which we are now debating is needed, the Secretary of State for the Colonies refused to allow the chiefs to organise collections in Sierra Leone for an educational purpose on the grounds that
collection by chiefs could not be approved because any such collections sponsored by them would be regarded by the people as a compulsory levy.
It is interesting to see how practices which were frowned on in past years are now regarded with favour by His Majesty's Ministers.
In conclusion, this is a great African scheme and 50,000 Africans may one day, at prodigious cost, be employed on this scheme. We believe something more of a future should be offered than being just paid labourers in a Government scheme. I commend to all hon. Members the White Paper on Native Policy issued 20 years ago by the Colonial Office itself, which said at the time that natives should be entitled to live and work in accordance with their own wishes, either in production in the reserves, or as individual producers on their own plots of land, or in employment for wages within and without their territory. The Government are up against a great many unexpected difficulties. This may be a warning to them in the future when they try and snatch quick advantages by drawing an over-attractive


picture, largely for political purposes. Had they told the truth as starkly before the last election as they are now obliged to do in regard to this limited scheme, they would not be today His Majesty's Ministers.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. J. H. Hare: I count this a fortunate opportunity to be able to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd). We have just listened to a speech which has been wide in its range and most constructive in its purpose. I hope that we shall hear some answer from the Minister of Food to the many questions which my hon. Friend has put.
I have had the good fortune, in common with several other hon. Members of this House, of visiting the area where the groundnuts are being grown. Anybody who has been there could not fail, in a speech on this subject, to pay some personal tribute to the very great work which has been done by the men and women who have been responsible for putting this great idea into execution. I feel that there is nothing more remarkable, in looking on this vast virgin forest which has so long defied the efforts of human beings to conquer it, than the fact that this gallant little band—and it is still, both black and white, a little band—has made such progress as they have, in the matter of a few months, in taming these great forces of nature. They really deserve the utmost gratitude, both of this Committee and of the nation as a whole. It is also remarkable to find in these men and women, who have had to face so many disappointments, such a crusading spirit, and such keenness and determination to go on. Those qualities are only too apparent amongst the people who are at present working on this scheme.
It is our duty tonight to lay emphasis on this particular Supplementary Estimate by which we are being asked to vote a sum almost equivalent to the original Estimate asked a year ago. We cannot help comparing the hopes of last year, when we had imagined that 150,000 acres of groundnuts would now be planted and would shortly be harvested, against the figure of 7,500 acres which are now in the ground. Perhaps more disturbing than that is the likely future rate of progress, and it is on the future rate of progress that the whole financial basis of this scheme

must rest. I gained the impression that, by the 1950–51 harvest, we shall be most fortunate, if all goes well, if we can achieve an acreage of 700,000 under groundnuts, and that compares with the estimate of 1,650,000 acres which the Blue Book (Command 7030) lays down, and which was published, I think, in February of last year.
That brings me to the main and most forcible point brought out by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford. He stated with great force—and he is quite right—that the whole basis of this Blue Book is hopelessly out of date. In other words, this Committee is debating a scheme of the utmost importance to the nation on information which is totally incorrect, and hopelessly out of date. I feel that that is something to which the Minister should give most careful attention. It is true that last November, during the Debate on the Overseas Resources Development Bill, we heard the Minister give some indication that a severe set-back had been suffered by the groundnuts scheme.
If I remember rightly, amongst the main reasons which he gave for the failure of this scheme to achieve its desired target was the congestion of the Port of Dar-es-Salaam, the lack of spare parts and maintenance facilities for machinery which have been exported to Tanganyika, and the great and unforeseen difficulties that the men on the spot found in clearing the roots from land which otherwise had been cleared of trees and bush. He spoke in rather confident tones, and I felt that those difficulties were in the immediate process of being overcome. Unfortunately, this optimistic forecast which he gave is only partially true in the light of the events of subsequent months. It was some three weeks ago that I was there. The position at the Port of Dar-es-Salaam has improved. That port, owing to the new methods of management and better technique, is just able to cope with the present amount of traffic going through, but if it is increased, and unless deep-water quay facilities are made available, there will recur the same old trouble.
It is true, also, that spare parts for these expensive and rare machines are in fair supply, but, unfortunately, workshop facilities are woefully lacking. When I was there, out of more than 300 heavy tractors used for clearance purposes, not


one single machine was engaged in land clearance. They had been called into the workshops for maintenance purposes, and were being slowly repaired. They were to be issued in batches of 20. That gives some indication of the very great delays which have been experienced with the existing machinery, and which have had to be faced. I was given to understand that it would take at least six months before workshop facilities in the Kongwa area would be brought up to the necessary state of efficiency. I feel that it is right that the Committee should know these facts, because it has been one of the main disadvantages of this scheme that we have had to listen to many hopelessly optimistic forecasts of what was likely to happen.
On the point of root clearance the Minister, to use his own words, said:
Difficulties of root clearance are being overcome by instruments particularly apt for this purpose being adapted, devised and applied.
I regret to say that, when I was there, on 19th February, there was no application. It is true that such a machine had been designed, and it is also true to say that a pilot model of that particular machine was being made in Nairobi. Even if this model is successful in carrying out the functions for which it is designed, how many weeks and months will it take to produce the number of these machines necessary, if the scheme is to go fully ahead, and the problem of route clearance solved?
We are being asked to vote £3,400,000 on a scheme of which the financial basis has radically changed, as the result of less than a year's experience. Kongwa was chosen because it was estimated to be the easiest area in which to start a clearance scheme. It would surely be insane to imagine that in other areas, both in Tanganyika, Northern Rhodesia and Kenya, where the groundnuts Corporation may go, other difficulties created by local circumstances will not also arise. I feel that if the Minister could give us some assurance that in future discussions, such as we are having this evening, he would be prepared to issue a White Paper bringing up to date this Blue Book, on which at the moment most of the nation's information is based, he would go a long way to create more confidence.

Mr. Strachey: Perhaps it was issued while he was away, but is not the hon. Member aware that another White Paper, Cmd. 7314, was issued this winter.

Mr. Hare: I have seen it, but such is the great speed of events that I regret to say that this latest White Paper is also hopelessly out of date, which goes to show the necessity for keeping the House and the nation perhaps even more closely informed than the Minister has been able to do.
We are being asked to vote large sums. I might tell the Committee a short story which reflects the idea which I found among many men who had been in Africa all their lives, and who had had experience in agriculture during the time they had lived in that great Continent. In another country further south, I met a very wise old man who had been a farmer all his life, and who had been Minister of Agriculture in the country in which he lived. He said to me, knowing I had teen to Kongwa, "Young man, mark my words, unless you are careful those nuts will cost you 6d. each before you are through." The point of that story is that we have to avoid that very thing happening. There is a danger that, unless we watch with scrupulous care what is happening in this venture, we may find ourselves in a position which will be quite ludicrous, pouring out vast sums of money and getting no return for it.
That would be a criminal thing for any Government to do in these days, when capital is so precious and when the demand for capital development throughout the Commonwealth is absolutely overwhelming, and when existing industries are calling for more capital. As my hon. Friend said, there is a constant demand for more machinery, and for more capital goods to increase the production of existing industries. For example, in Tanganyika the sisal industry is suffering directly from shortage of manpower and machinery owing to the priorities given to the groundnuts scheme. When I visited the sisal area I was assured that with a comparatively small amount of extra machinery and labour it would be possible for that industry to produce an extra 25,000 tons of leaf this year, available to sell in America, which would bring in the equivalent of some £2,200,000 in hard currency. Further south, wherever one goes in Northern and


Southern Rhodesia, there are great deposits of coal, chrome, copper and other minerals, all of which are waiting to be developed and are waiting for the construction of railways and ports, for which capital is urgently needed. Therefore, in granting this Supplementary Estimate, we must take into consideration, with great care, the other industries in Africa which are capable of expansion. We should make absolutely certain that we are not putting ourselves in the position of being accused of placing too many of our precious eggs in one basket.

6.54 p.m.

Mr. Crawley: Like the hon. Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Hare), I do not want to say anything to detract from the idea which underlies this great scheme. I have always been one of those who felt that its prospects must be spoken of with great caution. That is becoming more evident every day. I would remind my right hon. Friend that the French have some similar plans, and that they are being extremely cautious and are confining some of their experiments to a much smaller acreage, and making their plans on that basis.
I rise to ask two questions. In the difficulties we are having, and must have, today about equipment, it would be interesting to know whether my right, hon. Friend has tackled the question of American supplies, and what success or lack of it he has had? Secondly, in planning for the future—and bearing in mind the conversations which will be proceeding next week in Paris—is the question of any joint plans for the production of machinery suitable for this sort of scheme, both in British and French territories, being kept in mind by us and the French? I know that conversations covering a wide field are being held with the French and other Colonial Powers. It seems to me to be of great importance that the question of machinery for this scheme and other schemes should be borne in mind. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will say a word about it.

6.55 p.m.

Sir John Barlow: When the Blue Book on the groundnuts scheme was published last February, it caught the imagination of a large number of people in this country. The more one studied it, the more difficult it was to think that the figures and the proposals could be worked

out according to the plan. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Hare), I was fortunate enough to be out in East Africa recently when I paid a three-days' visit to the only groundnuts area which is being developed on any substantial scale at the present time. I should like to pay a tribute to the men and women on the spot who went out almost exactly a year ago, with no equipment to begin with, and nothing of any kind with which to start. They had first to extend the railway for several miles, and then build their own roads and get the equipment up to the spot. They had to face untold problems and bottlenecks. In spite of great difficulties, they have done a great job of work, so far as they possibly could.
Having said that, one must consider why it was not possible to work to the acreages and figures and dates which were put in the Blue Book. My own view is that the Government should never have accepted the Blue Book, as it was quite impossible to work to it, and if they had consulted more people who were experts in tropical agriculture, they would have got very different advice. We shall be told that they consulted one great firm which took the view that this scheme was possible. Many other people who were interested in and knowledgeable about tropical agriculture said from the first that it would be impossible to work to anything like this scheme. When I was there some months ago, I found about 350 English men and women, 150 Italians and 6,000 natives all living in tents. That is only partially satisfactory. Likewise all the offices were tents. At the time of my arrival two bungalows had just been finished. All the buildings, repair shops, etc., were of a temporary nature, and the permanent villages which it is hoped to build in course of time had not even been begun. It will probably be a long time before that work can be commenced. This existing tent town is by no means satisfactory, and the people there are living in trying conditions, especially when the weather is bad.
It will be remembered that it was suggested in the Blue Book that in the first sowing season some 150,000 acres of groundnuts should be sown. In point of fact, only 7,300 acres were planted, which is less than the figure mentioned in the recent White Paper on this subject. Half


of that acreage had already been cleared at some previous time by natives for their own cultivation, so that jungle was only cleared on about 3,600 acres. That is the actual area of the African bush which had been successfully cleared and planted. A futher 8,000 acres had been cleared at the time of my visit, but owing to the lateness of the season it was impossible to plant that land.
In the original Blue Book the scheme was estimated to cost about £24 million. We have already seen that the scheme cannot be worked on the figures given in these Estimates. One cannot hazard a guess whether the cost will be doubled or quadrupled. It will be a case of multiplication of the original estimates rather than addition to them. At the time of my visit, I believe that there were 303 bulldozers, and none of them was doing clearing work. Actually, 291 of the 303 were in the repair yards. The others, which were out working, were preparing roads. It was not satisfactory that these bulldozers, which had only been there for a few months, should already be in such serious disrepair. However, that was largely due to the fact that they had been bought on the highways and byeways of the world and the staff had not been able to overhaul them before they were handed over to the native drivers to begin work. The machines could not be overhauled in the time, because neither the facilities, the spare parts nor the skilled men were available.
In the case of other machinery, there were 200 new Massey Harris tractors, beautiful-looking Canadian machines. At the time of my visit, most of them were working well in the fields. It will be remembered that when this subject was mentioned at the beginning of the year, it was suggested that 10 rows or drills would be sown at the same time behind the tractor, and when it came to the job of scuffling out the weeds and cleaning the drills, similarly 10 rows would be done at the same time. I found to my surprise that actually only four drills were being planted at a time. As everyone knows who is familiar with root crops, one can only cultivate the same number of rows that have been planted at the same time. This involves a tremendous waste of power. It is probable that, from a power point of view, those

machines were capable of sowing anything from 10 to 20 drills at a time; but it may have been a question of convenience. As a farmer it seemed to me a great waste to use the machines only on four drills. Either the wrong machine or the wrong tractor was being used. The best method can only be found by trial and error after a long time.
It seems a tremendous waste to cultivate hundreds of thousands of acres on an experimental basis before finding out which method will be efficient and economic. I understand that practically the whole of the heavy machinery was bought from America with dollars. I suggest that we could have used those dollars in a much more suitable direction. The farmers of this country know how much we require American implements and tractors here. I have heard it suggested—possibly the Minister will tell me whether or not it is correct—that in order to get the quick delivery of these 200 Massey Harris tractors, the authorities are tied to using that make for two years. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will deal with that point. In view of the fact that it is necessary for the bulldozers and heavy machinery to be repaired so soon, it is strange to read in the oringal Blue Book that this machinery is to be depreciated over five years. That is another illustration of what nonsense the original Estimates now appear, when we know that some of the machines were worn out in five months instead of five years.

Mr. Strachey: That is rather an important statement. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that because they needed overhaul after five months, they were worn out in five months, or that that is any reason to suppose that they may not last for five years? Is he suggesting that that is not a reasonable period in which to write them off?

Sir J. Barlow: I believe that some of them will be worn out completely in five months. When I was there, I saw some heavy machinery which had been cannibalised. That may not be typical. I do not suggest that all of them will be worn out in such a short period. I do not wish to convey that for one moment, but I consider that the rate of depreciation is infinitely greater than the suggested five year period. One of my hon. Friends pointed out the unforeseeable difficulties


which have arisen. Hon. Members who have not visited Africa may find it very difficult to understand the unexpected problems which arise. I think that it is only Africa which can produce such tremendous difficulties. Those who have had experience of other countries have not, in most cases, experienced the unexpected in such a degree as appears to have been the case with the groundnuts scheme.
I suggest that there is a rate of economic development in all agriculture. If this scheme is pushed forward as fast as the Government originally wished, it will cost the taxpayers of this country a tremendous amount of money. It has been said that the world fat shortage is so serious that virtually any cost is justifiable. I do not agree with that suggestion. Undoubtedly, this scheme will produce nuts in course of time, but if the Government try to proceed with it too quickly, inevitably the cost will be great. For that reason, I should like to see the speed of progress definitely slowed down. I suggest that the Government should experiment first with one large area, say at Kongwa, where things are going as well as is possible. Another difficulty is the question of management. The Committee will remember that for a period of months the managing agents were to be representatives of Unilevers. After a time, the representatives of the new Corporation were to take over. The men on the spot, for whom I have a great regard, have learned a great deal by costly experience. It would be unfortunate if the value of that experience were lost during the change-over. For that reason, I hope that suitable arrangements will be made in order to use the experience which has been bought at a high price. In conclusion, I would say that this may still be a great and successful scheme; but unless the rate of progress is slowed down, undoubtedly it will prove far too costly to the taxpayers of this country.

7.10 p.m.

Colonel Ponsonby: Before I refer to the situation at Kongwa, which I visited a few weeks ago, I wish to mention a point which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) in connection with a reply given by the Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury (Mr. W.

Fletcher) a few weeks ago. The Question he asked was what local planting association or other authorities were consulted regarding the problem of clearing the bush at Kongwa, and the Minister replied:
Commercial civil engineering firms with considerable experience of mechanised bush clearing or airfield construction were consulted. No local planting associations have had experience of mechanical clearance. The sisal estates were cleared slowly by hand."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1948; Vol. 447, c. 285.]
As representing the sisal industry, I should like to say that the Minister was misinformed on that matter. In recent years, since heavy machinery was available, it has been used for clearing on many sisal estates, and it would have been open to the groundnuts people to consult with the sisal people, as they are doing now. Only a fortnight ago, when I was in the Tanga area, two prominent representatives of the groundnuts organisation came there and looked into the question of clearing and other matters, and I would like to say that there is entire co-operation between these various bodies now. I only mention the matter because I thought it would be unfortunate, and I am sure the Minister would agree, that there should be any implication that antiquated methods were used by the sisal industry, which is the best organised industry in Tanganyika, as well as a great dollar-earner.
I was fortunate in visiting the Kongwa area a few weeks ago. Other hon. Members who have been there have told the same story as I could tell, and I will mention only one or two points. There are 4,000 acres which have been planted on what is called "mbuga" or seasonal swamp, which required no clearing, and 3,500 acres which were planted as cleared land. I saw the crop coming up, and I should think that it might be a 60 or 70 per cent. crop, assuming that the rains come at the right time. In addition, approximately 7,500 acres were cleared at Kongwa and other places, and this means that this year about 15,000 acres have been cleared, of which about half has been planted.
I looked up the timetable relating to all this work, and I found that it had worked out in this way. In November, 1946, there was the discussion on the whole project; in February, 1947, there was the Blue Book (Cmd. 7030)


indicating the general scheme and in this the estimates were set out. According to a report issued in January this year, large-scale clearing operations began about the end of June or the beginning of July, 1947, only five months after the original scheme had been put before the House. In February, 1948, when I was there I was able to see the result of these operations to date, and I must say, and anybody who has been there will agree with me, that these results were all that it was possible to obtain. All the original survey work had to be undertaken, there was the erection of the tents and houses in the bush, decisions had to be made where planting was to take place, the machinery had to be obtained and people taught how to use it, and all the preliminaries of a pioneer undertaking had to be gone through in these very few months. I entirely agree with what has been said by others hon. Members that those on the spot have done a good job of work.
If we look at the original Estimates, it is interesting to guess what was in the mind of the Government at the time. How on earth could a Government issue a Blue Book in February, 1947, and expect ordinary human beings to plant 150,000 acres, after clearing the bush, in a matter of nine months? As regards the cost, the original figure in the Blue Book should by now have been £2,500,000, but up to the end of February, as is shown in the January report, the figure is actually about £5 million, and there is another amount to be added making it up to £7,900,000 at the end of this month. Of course, part of the expenditure may have been, and probably was, capital expenditure, but it is perfectly true that a great deal of this money has gone down the drain. These secondhand machines in many cases have been cannibalised in order to make a certain number of workable machines, and the victims of this cannibalisation are naturally written off.
All the evidence on the spot and careful reading of the documents which I have seen shows that the whole operation has been forced along at an unnatural pace, and that experience has been gained through trial and error instead of through careful planning and forethought. As a result, the first year is really a pioneer year, the first year of a pilot scheme, which is what I recommended last year

in the Colonial Office Debate. As it is, all the estimates can be put back a year or more, but I hope that the Government will cease to advertise the scheme, to shout about it or beat the drum about it, because what is wanted now is that those on the spot should settle down to their work. If they do, it is just possible that there might be a small trickle of vegetable oil in 1950 or 1951, but it is only fair that the people of this country should know that there is practically no chance of any vegetable oil being available for this country or anywhere else before that date. The reason, of course, is that for the first two years, assuming the scheme continues on a large scale, the majority of the nuts produced will have to be used for seed, unless it is found advisable to bring seed from America or anywhere else.
This operation is a warning to the Government not to attempt great schemes without proper investigation, and I would like to make a few suggestions. The first is that they should allow those on the spot to get down to business; the second is that this operation should be treated as a great private enterprise and that the Government should not try and run it from London; it is essential to trust the people on the spot. I would say one or two words, if I may, to the members of the Food Corporation who are, somewhere about this time, taking over the whole operation. I would say to Messrs. Plummer and MacFadden who, I believe, are the idealists on the Board, that they should think a great deal about groundnuts and not at the moment too much about the education of the African population. I suggest they should spend six weeks among the primitive Wagogo tribe, and having seen what it is to work with primitive people, go to the Belgian Congo and investigate how the Union Minière handle their labour and how they teach them to work.
I mention that because in the last report there is a note about education activities. It states that an education officer had been appointed and that someone was being brought from U.N.E.S.C.O. in order to help formulate an education policy. I suggest that the authorities should go and see what is being done in other places, and I have before pointed out that the way in which native labour is managed and the health of the natives looked after in the


Belgian Congo should be a model to many. I would say to those who are going to run the finances of the Food Corporation—Sir Charles Lockhart and Mr. Rosa—that they should watch the finances very carefully, and do all they can to prevent waste. This scheme is always referred to as a military operation, and military operations are obviously wasteful affairs, but on this occasion the money is the taxpayers' money, which we are voting today, and expenditure should be watched exactly as if it were a great private corporation.
Lastly, I would say to Mr. Wakefield, a man of great agricultural knowledge who knows all the snags: "Do not be too optimistic." This is a great experiment and I wish it every success. I hope it may be the forerunner of other schemes. I was surprised when I travelled through Africa to find in East and Central Africa that nearly all the Governments have had to buy food, mainly maize, for the natives, at great expense from outside Africa. In fact, in Northern Rhodesia, they were paying £3 a bag for maize from the Argentine as against 25s. to 30s., the local price. This is a ridiculous situation. We have here a huge country, many parts of which are fertile. There is a large population and yet Central and East Africa cannot feed herself. It is our duty to teach, to advise and even to compel the inhabitants of Africa to grow their own food and to be self-supporting. One of the methods we might, adopt is to introduce into native areas or reserves some scheme such as this, because it is vital to this country, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, that we should not have to lose maize from the Argentine to Africa.
It is vital to all of us that Africa should be self-supporting and should not have to rely on outside sources for food. In other words, Africa must feed herself before she feeds Europe, and I hope in the future, if this scheme is a success—even though it costs a great deal—it may be possible that something of this sort will improve the whole well-being of the native of Africa and, especially, teach them how to produce not only enough for themselves but extra for the rest of the world.

7.37 P.m.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: I cannot claim, like three of the previous speakers, to have visited Africa quite recently, but

some 25 years ago I spent five years of my life in Tanganyika clearing the ground for growing sisal and actually dealing in groundnuts. This scheme has always attracted me enormously, and I devoted a good deal of attention to it during the Committee stage. The difficulty which I foresee—and this is reflected in the very large amount of money involved—arises very largely from the Minister. The Minister feel that he is to a great extent an intruder in that area, and that he has got to justify himself. That is the way in which the scheme is being looked at, rather than objectively, on its own merits.
The alibi the Minister has produced on a number of occasions, when he has had to revise and alter his figures, is that this scheme is full of risks, that there are great difficulties being encountered, and that one can never be quite sure. The smooth and easy way he puts that over is partially convincing. But there are two sorts of risk in Africa: there is the foreseeable and avoidable risk and the unforeseeable risk, and reading everything put out in the series of changing Estimates, it is apparent that i is the foreseeable risk that has cost the extra money and is going to place this cheme, which many of us regard as a pioneer scheme, in great jeopardy.
One foreseeable risk was this question of clearing roots. Anybody who has cleared land for sisal—by the thousands of acres—knows perfectly well that the question of roots is always a difficult one. As evidence, the Minister has heard from the sisal planters. They have huge mechanised methods, which shows there has been progress, but the Minister has never consulted the sisal industry. Here was a foreseeable risk—here is a total absence of planning. It is perfectly clear if the net had been Fast wider, and the Minister had got more practical evidence, that would undoubtedly have saved the taxpayer a great deal of money and reduced these Estimates. There is, for instance, the use of the bulldozer in this lavish way. Of course, the Minister himself has a "psychological" affinity for bulldozers. What is the best description of a bulldozer? It is "a large, noisy, expensive machine used in levelling"—a perfect symbol of Socialism. Even this natural affinity has not avoided the fact that these machines are now nearly all having to be repaired and modified. "Speed,


speed" seems to be the watchword—speed at any cost.
Though it is perfectly true that great things may be done by this scheme it ought not to be falsified and ought not to cost tens of millions of pounds by being tackled in the wrong way and at too great a pace. It is important to get the tempo right and to cope with each phase of the scheme quite objectively as it develops. The baobab tree itself is difficult to deal with. It is an anti-social tree that plants itself several times over once it has been originally planted by man, and against the exhortations of the Minister of Food. It is a difficult tree to deal with, but if the right hon. Gentleman had taken advantage of the common knowledge in a wider sphere he would not have to produce, as he will later on have to produce, an alibi which he will, doubtless, seek to establish by saying, "Africa is always very difficult, and I have mentioned on more than one occasion the risks that are involved."
Let us come to a slightly different point. I recently asked a question of the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary who takes the Minister's place when he is away receiving the plaudits of Dundee. I asked her about a matter which arises in these accounts concerning the money expended on planning the harbours and railways, particularly at Mikindani, asking for a lighterage port rather than the establishment of a deep water port. The hon. Lady, following correctly in her Minister's footsteps, produced the smokescreen of experts that we always have issuing from the Ministry of Food. Whenever the Minister of Food is tackled on anything he seeks refuge beneath a screen of 15 experts—"Fifteen men on the dead man's chest"—and I think he is entitled to add, "Yo, ho, ho, and a, bottle of rum," because, I think, he has imported some recently.
Many years ago I was on the Harbour Board at Kilindini when the question arose of making it a deep water port. The ideal thing wanted when exporting bulk produce from Africa, whether it be groundnuts, decorticated or in oil form later on, or again when one finds one is going to export for many years a great deal more than one is going to import, is the use of gravity. If there is a cliff, the best means of loading is to use gravity, arising from the fact that

there is a considerable difference between the top of the cliff and the sea level; and the best thing to do is run the produce down to the hold of the ship by gravity. At one part of the harbour of Kilindini there was a cliff, but the experts, like those relied upon by the hon. Lady and the Minister, did not think that was any good. So they carefully cut the cliff away, ran railway sidings down after an enormous amount of levelling—a good Socialist idea—to the bottom, put up cranes and gantries, put in electric power, and lifted the produce into the hold of the ship. That was one of the most wasteful and stupid things ever done anywhere, and cost over £4,000,000.

Mr. Strachey: The hon. Gentleman is presenting a description of a port which he says that my hon. Friend and I developed.

Mr. Fletcher: The port of Kilindini.

Mr. Strachey: It begins next month.

Mr. Fletcher: There is a plan in the White Paper given by a body of people who have gone out there and recommended it. Surely, the right hon. Gentleman must know something about it? Or is the planning not started until the first sod is turned, until the first physical movement is made? He has appointed people to do it and paid them in connection with these Estimates.

Mr. Strachey: I may have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, but he seemed to me to be describing a large-scale operation from which he drew political analogies, and he seemed to represent that it had been done by me and my hon. Friend. It has not been done at all. That is the only point I was making. It seemed to me that he was giving hypothetical instances which he erected apparently to develop a tremendous assault upon me and my hon. Friend, but they are figments of his imagination.

Mr. Fletcher: No, they are not figments of my imagination. If the right hon. Gentleman had not been day-dreaming about snoek or something, but had listened to me a little more, he would have heard me say that this expensive scheme had been produced in Kilindini. It is 300 miles away from Mikindani and in a different country, but probably it does not make all that difference to the Minister. I would point out other in-


stances of how expert advice has failed in East Africa.

Mr. McAdam: Capitalist expert advice.

Mr. Fletcher: I do not know whether the experts label themselves Socialists or capitalists. I wish they did, for then one would be able to judge them a little bit better. The experts' advice in East Africa advocated a railway from Nagadi to the Uganda Railway. I tell the right hon. Gentleman that it is important that he should not waste public money by always believing and listening too much to experts. Out of Lake Nagadi we get soda which is brought to the Uganda Railway. The railway spur line advocated by the experts ran uphill instead of downhill, so that 97 per cent. of the traffic was dragged uphill and three per cent. ran downhill by gravity. Those who know East Africa, not on paper only, know that these mistakes were made. I warn the right hon. Gentleman that he should not build this port which he has paid money to people to recommend, without further advice.

Mr. Percy Wells: Who made the mistakes?

Mr. Fletcher: The experts made them. I am speaking of 1909—not the years between the wars; is that not unlucky? I am telling the right hon. Gentleman this for one reason only. If he is going to develop that scheme for a deep water port in Mikindani based on the figure of 300,000 tons of nuts a year, it is going to be a most expensive business which will create a tremendous burden of enormous overheads. We have seen what it can come to elsewhere. The building of a 600 foot lighterage port at Lindi, next door to Mikindani, is a wise start. Until this groundnutsscheme has passed beyond the experimental stage, until there has been a far bigger development up country, I would beg him not to allow these big port schemes that become so grandiose, or these enormous harbours, to be built. Most of the grain that comes out of the Argentine, of which we have been talking today, is carried to "fit-up" gravity ports. He might take a lesson from that.
I would say, with experience of what happens in Africa, and knowing the financial burden hung round the neck of Kenya, for years, he should look at these

schemes particularly at Mikindani and Lindi again to see that he is not burdening himself with a vast load of debt that cannot be justified for many years. The right hon. Gentleman may have got to the stage of fright about these schemes, at which he is impervious to suggestions, but I advise him, with sincere desire not to see this scheme overweighted from the beginning by quite unjustifiable overheads, to think again. He did give me an answer a little while ago when I asked a question about the estimate of 950 lb. per acre of the decorticated groundnuts coming forward. It was rather an optimistic one in view of the fact that for the first few years, owing to soil conditions, one is always likely to get a bigger crop than later. He replied that there would be a crop rotation and that something else would be planted later on. It would be most helpful if we could have from him a little more precise forecast of what he means to use as a rotation for his groundnuts as foreshadowed in the reply to that question.
I am not particularly frightened by the large amounts that are being expended if every single piece of that expenditure is being objectively considered, but I have a very uneasy feeling when I recall the optimistic speeches which he has made, and the rather clever way in which he glosses over the West African Kano groundnuts situation; when in a newspaper I see a photograph of him patting a locomotive on the back, I begin to be a little frightened. I begin to feel that he is losing the hard objectivity that he should have. I hope his acquaintance with Swahili has improved; at one time he was not certain whether it was a people or a language, but I think he knows now. He wants to go down to fame as "Bwana Njugu," which means "Lord Groundnut." I fear that he will go down to fame as "Bwana Hapana Viazi," which means "Lord No Potatoes."

7.42 p.m.

Mr. M. Philips Price: In this Debate there have been raised a number of points which I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to answer and about which he will give us a little more information than we have at present. It is quite clear, having listened to many well-informed speeches of hon. Members opposite who have been out to Africa, that much of the


information in this Blue Book is out of date. I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to give us more information about the cost of production, the acreages which have been planted and which are likely to be planted in the near future so that we can have a better idea.
Obviously, difficulties are bound to occur in the scheme at this time. Moreover, original costs must have been affected by the inflationary situation throughout the world, rising costs and one thing and another, which clearly make this Blue Book, which was published just over a year ago, out of date. At the same time, every hon. Member must feel that this scheme is very important, with a dollar shortage in the world, making it absolutely vital that we should seek important raw materials in the sterling areas wherever possible. I have recently been in France, and I find that the French are equally interested in this matter, because they too have African colonies which they are trying to develop and they have this same idea in hand, although not on such a large scale.
Listening to what hon. Members have been saying, I have formed the impression that this is a long-term investment and that we cannot expect returns very quickly. In view of the serious situation, one wonders how much we can afford a long-term investment. I hope the figures will make it clear that we can do so, provided we do not go too far. It is obvious that unless we can get returns fairly soon, it will be rather risky to invest very large sums of money such as those which are involved in this Supplementary Estimate. Therefore, I hope the Minister can throw a little more light on this subject and bring the Blue Book up to date. I feel sure that everybody wants this great scheme to become a success, in view of the situation with which we are faced.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I come within the category which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher) described as those who know East Africa on paper only, but a request for more money inevitably raises two questions in the mind of one who has the honour to be a Member for the part of Scotland which I represent. The first is whether we are getting value

for the money we have already spent, and the second is whether we are likelyq to get value for the extra money which we are now asked to spend.
Let me say at once that I believe in the development of Africa, and I accept the position that the speed at which this project has been put into operation is responsible for the omission of preliminary investigations which would normally throw some light on some of the more obscure and doubtful aspects of a project of this kind. Such criticism as can be levelled against the scheme falls under three main heads; first, its social aspects, secondly, its technical aspects, and thirdly, its financial aspects. About its social aspects I do not propose to speak, in view of the lateness of the hour, except to say that a project in which we expect eventually to employ about 32,000 men when full production is reached, must require that we should face squarely the social implications of trusteeship. I do not believe we are doing that. I believe there is a great deal of evidence that we have paid far too little attention to that aspect of the situation.
I pass to the second aspect—that of the technical considerations—upon which I wish to speak chiefly this evening. Command Paper 7030 says in paragraph 65:
Any suggestion of exploiting the inherent fertility of the land is unthinkable,
and in paragraph 71 it says:
Soil conservation is undoubtedly the overriding factor.
What chance is there that the technical methods which have been recommended, and for which we are asked in this Supplementary Estimate to pay, will secure these desirable ends? The rotation which is envisaged is two years under groundnuts and a two years grass ley, or alternatively one year's grass ley and one year in a sorghum crop. It is true that the possibility of animal husbandry has been given a passing reference in the Report—such a passing reference that, with permission, I will quote briefly from paragraph 14 in which it is mentioned. It says:
The good fodder provided by the tops of the groundnut plant and the abundant pasturage provides by the grass leys, which will cover roughly half the total acreage brought into cultivation, suggest that stock farming might in time become an important industry in these groundnut areas.


Paragraph 76 of the Report states:
It has been necessary to detail the proposed farming system if only to show that other farming operations ancillary to groundnut production, whether alternate crops or animal husbandry, are not essential either to produce or to maintain soil fertility for the production of groundnuts. In any case, neither the cattle, nor the labour, nor the water supplies required for animal husbandry (or for compost making) are available in many of the groundnut localities.
The Report says, in effect, that it may be possible, or desirable, or both, to introduce beef ranching at a later stage, but that this is neither possible nor essential in the early stages. For the maintenance of fertility, reliance is thus placed on the ploughing-in of plant residues and of grass leys, without animal waste. I think it is doubtful if a rotation of this nature, which clearly approximates to a system of monoculture, makes adequate provision for maintaining, in tropical conditions, the humus content of the soil. For the maintenance of the fertility of virgin soils of this nature, far too much reliance is placed on the stimulus of artificial fertilisers and of organic matter, and none at all upon the natural means of ensuring the innate fertility of Mother Earth.
What is to happen if the parasitic weed, alectra vogelli, gets a hold in our groundnut crop areas? This weed has its counterpart in India, where it attacks, among others, the tobacco plant. I am advised that where it gets a hold experts would not contemplate for one moment growing more than one tobacco crop every fourth year. If that occurs in East Africa, as it may, the whole of our two years' rotation goes west. Yet the retention of the two years' rotation is the key to the whole financial structure of the scheme. As a matter of fact, the rotation itself is suspect. There was a letter in the "Crown Colonist" of October, 1947, which was written, as the writer said, "to prevent a calamity." It was a letter from a leading authority in. Rhodesia, who had himself grown groundnuts for 30 years, and his experience, as he recounted it in the letter, was that a second crop of groundnuts was not worth planting.
Finally, let me pass quite briefly to the financial considerations—considerations which have been referred to by several Members—and say this: for its financial soundness a scheme of this kind should be based more broadly than upon a single

cash crop. It may be that in future we may be able to look to more crops than one single crop; I hope that that will follow. From the bottom of my heart I hope that this scheme will be successful, but at present we can only note that the taxpayers' money is being spent in large amounts, and at very long odds.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. York: Like my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley), I am interested in this scheme as a cultivation experiment, and from the point of view of the food which I hope my constituents may one day receive. We hope that that will not be too long delayed. Also like my hon. Friend, I, too, wish this scheme well. I think it is a very big conception, but I am not quite sure for whose benefit it is. The more I hear about it, the more I wonder who will reap the benefit of this scheme. We have heard a considerable amount from the "trippers," and I am glad that we have, because they have been able to bring us the first-hand information which we were unable to obtain for ourselves. It seems that our practical appreciation of the situation, which was founded on the wrong information of the Wakefield Committee, has been entirely wrong.
From the reports I have heard, I am surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Hare) estimated that by 1950–51 we shall have planted 700,000 acres. To date it does not look as if we would get 100,000 acres by that time. I am not exactly clear as to whether this project is really to produce food for this country or whether it is, in a minor degree, to produce food and feedingstuffs and perhaps, in a major degree, to produce raw materials. I am also not clear whether East Africa can afford to grow groundnuts. I have heard one or two of my hon. Friends talk about the effect of this on sisal growing, and I am beginning to wonder whether the net effect of growing groundnuts will not be that for three or four years we shall get less produce, in total, from East Africa than we were getting before. That is my impression, and I dare say that is in the minds of other hon. Members. We have lost a considerable labour force in the sisal growing areas, and have not replaced in the groundnut areas the produce which they would have grown.
I want now to make one or two brief criticisms of the administration of the scheme as I see it from a distance. Like the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeen, we have to do it on paper. The first criticism is about machinery. I understand the difficulty of the supply position at the moment, but certain reports I have received disturb me. I would like to know why it is considered reasonable to send derelict machinery out to East Africa? I have two reports, one being about tractors sent to Urambo, which arrived in such a rusty condition that although they have been there for two months, still only 10 out of the 70 sent are in working condition. Of course, there may be the very good reason that they came from some of the fighting fronts in the Pacific; but surely it would have been far more sensible for that machinery to have been landed in, perhaps, India, where it could have had proper repair facilities, been reconditioned, and then sent on to East Africa.
The second report is even more astonishing. This again is at Urambo, and concerns a sawmill which was sent there, a matter of very considerable importance. I am informed that the sawmill came from Devonshire, that it had been used by the Canadians when they were here, and arrived in East Africa with the belts completely worn out, the saw unusable, and the castings broken. It seems to me wholly unreasonable that such a machine should have been sent from this country in that condition. When it gets out there the men on the spot are discouraged by having that sort of stuff thrown at them, and it could easily and quickly have been put into a working condition in this country, and shipped out in a state of proper repair, ready to go straight to work when it arrived.
We all realise that the progress in the Kongwa area has been very slow indeed, yet we hear that no less than 300 miles away, at Urambo, a new project is being started. For all we know the same troubles will start there, which may be a little less difficult to overcome than in Kongwa. Why is it necessary to dissipate our energy and our limited resources? My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Sir J. Barlow) touched on this point, and I wish he had further elaborated it. We have very limited resources, so let

us use them in the way calculated to produce results in the shortest possible time. Our food problem is a short-term one for the next two or three years, but the groundnuts scheme will not help us if we go on in this way. If we concentrated resources upon one area and got a good deal further with that area, I believe we should do far better than by dissipating our forces on several sites at long distances apart.
I wanted to ask a good deal about whether groundnuts were the best crop, but that has been touched on, so I will not elaborate it. It struck me when reading the Wakefield Report, and when following up the White Paper and the points made by Government spokesmen, that the Government are worshipping the groundnut as a god: the Minister of Food and his officials fall on their faces with their heads to the south when somebody mentions groundnuts; it is almost a ritual. I do not know very much about groundnuts, but I am told by those who do that it is a very difficult crop to mechanise. We shall see that after one year's harvest when we get these combines going. On the other hand, I am told that the sunflower crop is a very much easier one to mechanise. Apparently it would grow in that area, and the only snag I can find is contained in the Wakefield Report, which says that the mills in England are not capable of coping with it. There will not be such a supply of groundnuts or sunflower seeds in the ensuing period that the mills here could not convert enough of their capacity to deal with it. I want to make sure that the timber resources of certain areas—such as Mohimbika, which I am told has very valuable timber resources—are utilised. We want timber in this country. If it is of a type, such as teak—which it may well be, although I do not know, because I have not the details—it would be of invaluable assistance to this country now.
My last point concerns the size of the units. From my practical experience in agriculture I am staggered at the size chosen for this unit—30,000 acres of farmland. By all means clear an area of 30,000 or 60,000 acres. That is not important. What is important is that an attempt is made to farm an area of 30,000 acres on an intensive scale. Do not let us be in any doubt that the system which is being put into force in East Africa is an intensive system, particularly when


road crop work is being embarked upon. To think that an attempt can be made to farm in units of 30,000 acres is, to my mind, a serious consideration.
This is not factory production; nothing in agriculture can ever be factory production because of the vagaries of the weather, the climate, the soil, and so on. The variations which take place in any area, including that one—and, incidentally, including the prairies of Western America—are tremendous. In all soils with which I have had to deal, not only here but in India, the variations in level in the water-table and in the constitution of the soil itself are tremendous; they vary over very small areas. The manager of 30,000 acres, if he is to be efficient, ought to know every inch of the soil of his farm. He will not and cannot possibly know; nor can he supervise properly and efficiently the farming operations on that vast area. I am speaking from some experience of this matter, because I have worked large estates of 30,000 acres. I know that although such an estate can be managed, it cannot be farmed on that area.
I put two considerations to the Minister about the use of machinery. The main problem in groundnutting is that of planting at the right time, and getting this huge area all planted up in a very short space of time; also, though perhaps not so important, weeding it at the right time. In smaller units that would not be so difficult; but in this vast unit it will be extremely difficult, and if there is an administrative breakdown anywhere, a very big mistake will be made. I ask the Minister to give careful thought to this matter. The sub-units into which these major units are being divided are, I am told, 640 acres—about one square mile. I suggest seriously to the Minister and his experts that about 10 of these units is the maximum number any man can manage efficiently. That would amount to between 6,000 and 7,000 acres. That is a pretty big area for a farm, for a man to manage, but I believe that he could manage and supervise it.
The reason an area of 30,000 acres was chosen was that the overhead expenses and capital costs would require an acreage of 30,000; but it is not based—and this is, I think, the most powerful argument—on the science and practice of agriculture—and we are dealing with an agricultural

scheme. I hope the Minister will get his experts to reconsider this matter. Several practical farmers who have been out there have commented upon this aspect. We cannot tell, at any rate for a year, until we have cleared at least one unit, whether there has been a mistake. I ask the Minister to ensure that this question is carefully and closely considered. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree that my criticisms have been constructive. I hope that they will be helpful, and that this scheme will produce plenty of feeding-stuffs for me and for my constituents.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I was unfortunately prevented from attending the beginning of this Debate, but I hope that I may be permitted to say a few words at the end. I happen to be very interested in this scheme. I confess a personal interest, because the company with which I am associated is endeavouring to produce the machine which will plant the nuts. It will be a British-made piece of mechanism, which I hope will serve the necessary purpose and save dollars. While criticism is justified, we ought to be fair to ourselves and to the Government. With a scheme of this kind, we are up against three peculiar difficulties. Firstly, we are dealing with virgin soil, in respect of which it is impossible to make any accurate time estimates. It just cannot be done, and it never has been done; the programming is always wrong and is always late. Secondly, we are dealing with native labour and applying it to mechanised methods. That is asking for trouble, and that in itself will cause delay. Thirdly, in this scheme we are using mostly old tractors, that is tractors which have not been used for a long time and are out of condition. Unless there is a proper servicing organisation we shall automatically run into trouble.
I am not going to criticise anyone, because I think that the managing agency have, in the circumstances, done extraordinary good work and deserve everyone's congratulations. But the facts of the situation, as we now know it, must convince the Minister and the new Corporation that something drastic must be done about servicing these machines. As I understand it, there is not yet a proper servicing organisation. I know, from experience of other parts of the world, that unless a really effective staff of trained


men is built up, together with the necessary spare parts, everything goes wrong and the programming goes out of gear. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether effective action has been taken in this regard.
I invite the Minister to look into the question of the supply of tractors in this country. I think that he could get more tractors for East Africa if he would take the necessary steps. The Ministry of Fuel and Power have a great many tractors which they do not use. I saw one dump only two or three weeks ago with 20 or 30 big powerful tractors which had not been used for the last two years. They are not being repaired or maintained, and no one will buy them. I can assure the Minister that these tractors could be put right and placed at his disposal. The machines are not useless. There are firms in this country who could put them into first class running order. The dump I speak of is probably typical of others. I shall be happy to assist the Minister in any way in this direction, because I happen to know that there are these graveyards with machines which could be used. I am sure that with the development of an effective servicing organisation and by the use of all machines available in this country much more could be done in East Africa.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Strachey: Before coming to the main part of this Debate, perhaps I might deal with the constructive points made by the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) and the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York). In regard to home-produced tractors, or tractors which are available at home, I am sure that when the officers of the Food Corporation read HANSARD it will make their mouths water. If the hon. Member for East Fife can give any exact particulars, or can indicate where these tractors are accessible and purchasable by the Corporation, I am sure that they will be more than willing to consider the possibility of acquiring them.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I will gladly give the right hon. Gentleman the information, but may I invite him to consult the Minister of Fuel and Power?

Dr. Morgan: Tell us where they are.

Mr. Strachey: The hon. Member is absolutely right about servicing, and still more is this so, if secondhand or reconditioned tractors are being used. Even if new tractors are being used, the key to success is maintenance, just as it was with the Royal Air Force, where the amount of manhours put in on this work was probably higher than in any other single activity. I can assure the hon. Member for East Fife that maintenance is written in the hearts of the managing agency, and will be the biggest consideration in the minds of General Harrison and the other members of the Corporation when they take over at the end of this month.
The hon. Member for Ripon raised a very interesting point when he asked why we should not concentrate all our reserves on the Kongwa area, rather than start in the Uramba area and in the south later on. At the cost of incurring the anger of the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher), who dislikes me to consult the expert, the answer of the experts in this case is that if we did that, we should be putting all our eggs into one basket to a very risky extent. The nature of the soil varies very greatly in small areas, and still more in the different provinces. Above all, we should be subject to rainfall in that particular area, and we might have almost a total crop failure if that was the only area of cultivation. It is much wiser to average the risk over three separate areas. The hon. Member also asked whether the most suitable crop was groundnuts, and suggested that sunflowers should not be overlooked. That has been considered. It is quite possible that sunflowers will be experimented with and planted in some of the areas, if the soil proves suitable for them. The disadvantage of the sunflower is not that the production cannot be mechanised—I agree that machinery could be adapted for this purpose, and it will be adapted if it is found to be of advantage—but that you get very much less oil.

Mr. York: Per acre?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir, very much less. That does not mean that it may not be wise to grow sunflowers in rotation in some areas, or to grow them as a main crop in certain areas. The hon. Member then went on to the question of crop rotation. It is quite obvious that there has to be a careful rotation of crops, and


cereals and grass leys are what the experts consider best. In all these matters, it would be highly unwise for the corporation to be dogmatic. It would be very unwise to lay down a particular rotation of crops at this stage. The Corporation will have to feel its way. I am sure that the Corporation will not exclude any particular rotation. They have tried a great many varieties of groundnuts in the areas already cleared, and they will try various cereal crops in rotation. They have cereals on trial plots planted with groundnuts in previous years, and they are trying them in rotation.

Colonel Wheatley: Is it definite that the experts say that they are going to have a two year rotation? I have found from experience that one year is enough.

Mr. Strachey: The hon. and gallant Member knows that in the Blue Book quoted today they go on record as saying that they believe two years' rotation is perfectly possible. I think they will go by experience. They will not commit themselves.
The hon. Member for Ripon asked about timber. I think that is a hidden asset of the scheme, which may turn out to be of considerable importance. It is timber of the hard wood type that is in question—not as hard or as valuable as teak, but hard wood suitable for furniture and similar purposes. No asset was recorded in the report for any timber production, but already we are shipping saw mill machinery, and I am sure we shall make it work in these areas. The timber will be only a by-product, but it may be an important and valuable by-product of the scheme.
The hon. Member also raised an interesting point on the size of the unit. I do not think that the scheme is committed to management being on the basis of 30 thousand acre units. They will see what works out well, and what is practicable. The scheme was planned on the basis of these large units, but it may be that a unit of a different size, or some scheme of devolution under managers, may prove the wisest course. I think that the Corporation would wish me to say that they are not committed on these proposals. There had to be in the original Report some picture of what they thought should be done, but I think that the

authors of that Report would be the first to agree that it will almost certainly be modified very widely in all these particulars of the proposed forms of management as the scheme progresses.
To turn back to the beginning of the Debate and to the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), his opening passage suggested that the Committee ought to feel great concern because we are asked to provide in this Estimate nearly one-third of the money which is to be invested in the scheme, namely, £25 million. He contrasted that with a suggestion that far less than one-third of the area proposed in the scheme had been actually cleared. I think that his comparison is quite unreal. We are asked to vote here £8 million. That has not all been spent, but we are asked to provide it. By far the greater part of that sum is to be spent on capital expenditure, on building a railway over 100 miles long and on building a port—the hon. Member for Bury had a good deal to say about that—and on providing the heavy clearing equipment and the agricultural machinery and all the basic plant by which the scheme is to operate. All that initial outlay can bear no proportion at all to the particular area which has been cleared in the first few months of its operation.
I would like to clear up one point. It has been suggested by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford and other hon. Members, that some of this expenditure was high because of 'the delays in obtaining this plant and machinery. It is exactly the reverse, There have been delays which I have described previously in great detail and with great frankness. There have been delays in the speed of clearance per acre, but there have been no delays in acquiring the plant and machinery. On the contrary, we have acquired much more than we budgeted to acquire in the first year, and much more than is actually necessary or than we can use in the first year. We have bought ahead. In saying "we" I mean the managing agents, who have done so with my full knowledge and consent. They have bought ahead on a very heavy scale plant and machinery which we cannot possibly use this year, but shall use in future years. We have done that because the most important proportion of this plant and machinery including all the heavy tractors, bought up


to now has been surplus war stores of one kind or another.
There have been several reasons for buying them. The first and simplest reason, was that it was the only thing available. These surplus war stores were the only plant and machinery available in the world with which to get the scheme started, if it was to be started at all at this time. Secondly, if we had not bought it now, it would have gone for ever, and have been dissipated for all sorts of other uses, and in many cases rusting where it stood. We believe that it was an enormous national advantage that a constructive use should be found for this plant and machinery which had already been produced.
The real cost of it was met when we produced it in the war years. A good deal of it was lease-lend, and therefore, it seemed to us a tremendous economy from the country's point of view to purchase it, although we could not use it at once, so that in the years ahead we could use it for the groundnuts scheme. Thirdly, it was remarkably cheap as compared with the price of purchasing new machinery. It is quite true, as many hon. Members have said, that the 400-odd tractors now in the country are probably not quite as good as if they had been brand new heavy tractors, but they were very much cheaper, which is an important consideration. We shall not get quite the same number of years' service out of them, but we bought them for less than half the price in most cases, so surely that was not an unwise thing to do. Above all, if we look at this from the national point of view, and not from the account of the Ministry on this Estimate or of the Overseas Food Corporation, all the money which they are spending on these war stores comes out of one Government pocket and goes into another. It reappears in the Budget as war stores and the real cost to the country is, in a sense, only the cost of reconditioning.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: What proportion of that cost will be dollar expenditure, for which the same argument can not be used?

Mr. Strachey: I am talking of British war stores of all sorts. It is also true that we bought some American heavy bulldozers

and tractors in the Phillipines, which was a real cost in dollars, but a lower real cost because these machines were very much cheaper, although not quite so good, as new American bulldozers had they been available which, as a matter of fact, they were not. We get real economy in the purchase of our tractor fleet in that way.
The major expenditures are not on the tractor fleet but on railway, road and port building, the basic neecssities, all of which have to be laid down. It is quite true that the port which is going to be built, Mikindani, will be costly, and I was heavily attacked on that score by the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher). I found it difficult to follow his attacks, because he first accused us strongly of not consulting the experts on the size of these plantations. Then he had a long, most amusing passage in which he accused my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and myself for following the advice of the experts in building the port. He cannot have it both ways. We must be allowed to consult them or not, and if he wishes to know what we have done, we have consulted the experts who are the best that can be found.
In their opinion it is absolutely indispensable to build a port which has some deep water facilities. We have been told by many hon. Members, who are just back, of the burdens on the port of Dar-es-Salaam, and it is because that port has basically no deep water facilities, but is only able to ship by lighter that we are to have the bigger scheme. It stands to common sense that the experts must be right when they say that a deep-water port is indispensable there. The managing agency of the Corporation cut down the size of the port which the experts would like to have. They are carrying on in the interim period with a lighterage wharf which will accommodate tank landing craft and lighters of that size and it will only be about 18 months until the deep water port will be available.
That is basically the object of the expenditure of the money which the Committee is being asked to vote tonight. A great deal of play has been made by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire on the fact that the estimates set out in the original Blue Book must now be out of date. It is quite true that world prices both of the things the Corporation will


have to buy and—I would emphasise this to the Committee—of the products which the Corporation will be selling have advanced considerably since that time. He argued that the estimate of the production cost of one ton of nuts in the Blue Book was £4 5s. and that it is obviously going to be higher than that. I should quite agree. A big scheme of this kind cannot be launched in a period of world inflation without everything that has to be bought going up in price so that the cost of production must go up too.
At the same time, if the world inflation has not improved, the income from what the Corporation has to sell goes up too. The Corporation will be selling groundnut oil, and in the estimates, which the hon. Member says are out of date, there is an estimated price of £30 a ton for it. The price we unfortunately are having to pay today is much nearer £50. Therefore, as soon as groundnut oil is produced in East Africa, if both these conditions are still in existence, the actual profitability of the scheme has on paper gone up rather than down. The price of the product will be at least as much as or indeed more than the cost of the thing which it has to buy.
There is one point I should like somewhat strongly to deal with if I may. A number of speakers accused me of making outrageous, optimistic forecasts in regard to the scheme. I ask the Committee to notice that not one of them has been able to quote any words of mine which have been alleged to have been made in these outrageously optimistic forecasts. My hon. Friends will agree with me that if any words of mine could be construed in that sense they certainly would have been quoted in the course of this Debate.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I did quote a remark made by the Parliamentary Secretary, who was speaking on behalf of the Department, that this year 50,000 tons would be exported, while the figure we are now told in the progress report will be 4,000 tons. I do not wish to brag of it, but it was a statement of fact which was 12 times what the reality is going to be.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summer-skill): That is not the Minister.

Mr. Strachey: I stand by the Under-Secretary's statement, because what she was doing at that time was quoting from

the Wakefield-Martin-Rosa Report (Cmd. 7030). If there is an accusation of being over optimistic, it is, as a matter of fact, in the report which was received, which we printed and which we were not at liberty to alter. That was not a statement composed by the Government; it was a report which we decided to publish and which was given to the Government by these free and, if I may say so, in my opinion very able men who visited East Africa, and who made a report of what they thought was possible, granted, of course, that the scheme could be started at the time which they hoped it could be started.
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford said specifically that the United Africa Company was not responsible for the wildly optimistic picture which was drawn of this scheme. As a matter of fact that report—though I make no criticism of that whatever—was signed by Mr. Martin, who is a leading member of the United Africa Company, and the man who has managed the scheme in Africa over the past year, and who has done very great service in that connection. The scheme itself has been adduced and sponsored—again I think with great credit—by Mr. Samuel, the Chairman of the United Africa Company.
If there was an accusation in regard to an over optimistic picture, it would lie against the United Africa Company who—quite rightly in my opinion—pointed out the possibilities which groundnut growing had in East Africa. I would point out to hon. Members opposite any criticisms that they have made of the conduct of the scheme, and very few of them, if any, well founded—not that there have not been mistakes because there have been, and no great scheme such as this could be run without making mistakes—were the faults of the United Africa Company. Let me hastily add that I have great admiration for the work put in by the Company on the scheme. They have made mistakes. They would be the first to say so, but on the whole the Company deserves extremely well of this House and of the country for the work which they have done. I should like to say that tonight—a fortnight before they relinquish control of the scheme, which will be on 31st March of this year.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I say "Hear, hear," to that.

Mr. Strachey: But the criticism of them has come from the other side of the House and not from our side.

Colonel Wheatley: Would the Minister agree that before launching out into a big scheme, it would have been better to experiment first for a year or two?

Mr. Strachey: That is a nice, leisurely prospect, but of course, we have been experimenting for a year or two. After all, we have accumulated much capital equipment in the country and carried out what might be called large scale experiments. Under the large-scale experiments of three or four months, we have been doing clearing work which has cleared this acreage of ground, but that is no more than a fairly large-scale experiment. It will be extremely valuable and it has proved necessary, in effect, in giving the organisation work in the accumulation of materials and in clearing. It really has been an experimental year and I do not think that anything has been lost by it.
I was asked about a very important point, the production of heavy clearing machinery in this country. For the continuation of the scheme and of other such schemes, we certainly do not want to be dependent upon buying machinery from dollar sources. The next source of reinforcement of the heavy tractor fleet will still be a war source, in the form of what is called the Shervic heavy tractor. This is simply a Sherman tank. We have some hundreds of them in use, reconstructed. Its armour is taken off by Messrs. Vickers. Some 350 of these have now been ordered by the Overseas Food Corporation, after extremely successful trials which came to their conclusion only in the last few weeks. Of this tractor tank—a tank made into a tractor—large numbers are working in East Africa. We believe that by the adaptation of these surplus tanks which have no value for any other purpose, we have a valuable instrument for the next phase of the scheme.
In the longest run, specially produced heavy tractors will no doubt be better still. I am not permitted to give the names yet, but I am glad to be able to say that two of the foremost firms in British engineering have now decided to begin the design and production of a heavy, diesel tractor which would be of use in this scheme. That development has been made possible by the order which

the Overseas Food Corporation were able to give. It will be a very great credit to British engineering and of great value to the engineering reputation of this country.
A great number of other points have been mentioned and I do not promise to cover all of them. In the field of native labour, rather than difficulties having arisen, it has definitely been a good deal easier to recruit the labour than was feared or expected in many of the published statements—so far, at any rate. It has proved possible to collect a native labour force simply by the attractions which work on the scheme could offer.
I would say one word about a subject which has not been raised this afternoon but which I think is in the minds of hon. Members in many parts of the House. It was just mentioned by two of my hon. Friends. The first point is: what is the real purpose of the scheme? Is it simply to provide food for this country or is it to develop and improve conditions in Africa? The answer is that it is both. I wish to emphasise with all the strength at my command that these are complementary purposes and that the scheme will succeed in both respects or neither. We shall not succeed in increasing our own food supply unless we succeed in raising the standard of life and production in East Africa.
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford said that when the Bill was given a Second Reading to set up the scheme it was done on the basis that the economy of East Africa would not be disturbed. I cannot promise him that. The scheme involves something very like an agricultural revolution in Africa.
We have heard expressions of doubt as to whether soil erosion and the like can be guarded against. Nobody can, of course, prove exactly the right methods of doing that, but we can say that we are paying the utmost attention to soil conservation and have on the job the very best scientists who are available. What we can say without fear of contradiction is that without this scheme or some scheme of this sort for an agricultural revolution there, the old native methods of cultivation were producing soil erosion on the most terrifying scale and the whole food supply of this area was coming more and more into jeopardy because the primitive peasant method of cultivation with the hoe was rapidly destroying the fertility of the soil and producing an imminent threat


of famine for the natives, as Sir Phillip Mitchell has described in Kenya. However advantageous these schemes may be for this country, they are a matter of life and death for the native inhabitants of Africa.
I would never try to "sell" this scheme as a sort of philanthropic venture, which we are doing simply by providing schools, education and the like for the Africans. It will do so, and is doing so—we have provided on a great scale for education services, welfare services and the like—but these things are of relatively small importance from the African point of view, compared with what this scheme can really do, which is to set their agriculture on a new basis. Without that, the prospect for them is bleak indeed because their agricultural methods, as Sir Phillip Mitchell so eloquently described, are leading to disaster. That is why I would without hesitation before any audience of Africans—there are intelligent and educated Africans taking a deep and critical interest in this scheme, as they should—defend it not as an act of philanthropy but because it gives them new methods of production without which their condition would indeed be difficult. I am, therefore, convinced that there is enormous mutual advantage in the prosecution of this great scheme.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £142,328,498, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Food; the cost of trading services including certain subsidies; and sundry other services.

Orders of the Day — CLASS II

DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR ESTABLISHMENTS, ETC.

Motion made and Question proposed:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,310,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948, for the expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions and Consular Establishments Abroad; certain special grants and payments, including grants in aid; and sundry other services."—[Mr. McNeil.]

8.48 p.m.

The Minister of State (Mr. McNeil): The Committee will not expect me, in presenting this Vote, even summarily

to deal with all the Subheads. I propose, therefore, if it is convenient to the Committee, to refer to the three largest items on the Vote. These are the £500,000 for the care of British interests in territories formerly under enemy control; £364,000 for the assistance to Polish refugees; and a sum just short of £1 million covered by the Subheads from A to E.7, and, for orderly consideration, Subhead I should be included. The £500,000 at Subhead Q is just as simple as the Explanatory Memorandum suggests. Previous to the entry into the last war of the United States, they, of course, took care of our interests in enemy-occupied territories. They were succeeded by the Swiss who, like the Americans—and let me take this opportunity of saying it again—took the greatest pains in carrying out the work and in sending very complete accounts of their expenses. This sum of £500,000 is, in fact, a late addition to the expenditure of almost £13 million incurred in the discharge of these tasks during the war. It represents arrears of charges, as I understand it, mainly in France, in the Far East, in Greece and in Italy for the relief of British subjects in distress owing to enemy action. Such details as may be needed, I will endeavour to give, but it is a fairly straightforward proposition.
Turning to Subhead P, that is "Assistance to Polish Refugees," I should remind the Committee, as I told the House recently, that following large movements of these combatant Poles to Great Britain, there were left in Italy some 5,000 men who had fought for us. They were in this unusual and distinctive category mainly because they had contracted marriages in Italy and we thought not only that it was undesirable to bring them, with their comrades to this country, but we entertained the hope that they might be fitted into the Italian economy. However, as the Committee probably knows, unemployment in Italy and the difficulty in restoring normal social stability there, has made this impossible, and this sum of £364,000 represents substantially the cost of chartering two ships to take these Polish soldiers, to whom we had obligations which we could not or would not seek to evade, to their new homes. Part of the sum represents costs incurred by the International Refugee Organisation because, although these Polish soldiers were not eligible for I.R.O. treatment, the


I.R.O. consented to act as our agents and, of course, have put in their account. Perhaps I might point out that the cost of transport is much greater than the I.R.O. cost, which represents £50,000, and the balance of some £314,000 represents the cost of transporting these men to their new homes. I am glad, therefore, to be able to tell the Committee that this will not be a recurring cost. The bulk of these men are being transported to the Argentine, and I hope that only a few scattered groups, who will still be taken care of, will remain after 22nd March.
Now may I say a word or two about Items A to E and I, which, as I have said, total over £1 million? They represent sums necessary for the salaries and the allowances of the various branches of the Foreign Service. A part of these costs is due to the fact that we have continued to recruit people to these various sections of our Service in an effort to bring it up to the provided establishment. The Committee will remember that I recently gave some figures on this subject, but, in addition, we found it necessary to revise the system of allowances to take care of the increased costs, the changes in the exchange rate and, of course, the increase in rents which has taken place in all those countries where there is an inflated or semi-inflated currency.
Various Members of the Committee, on both sides, have from time to time shown a most proper interest in the allowance scales for the Foreign Service. I think the Committee would like me to tell them that the inspectors who have been reviewing this whole subject will, I hope, have entirely completed their work this year. I hope that in that time they will have visited all posts and examined all grades inside the Service. Their job is to see that the Service has such allowances as will enable its members to discharge their job in an efficient and seemly fashion. When these new allowances are fixed, they will also have attached an automatic changing system, so that the men or women will immediately get the increase which it is agreed is due to them. We hope that this will prevent a hardship to which many Members of the Service were previously subjected, that when an increase was agreed upon it might be months and months before it overtook the man or the woman entitled to it.
I shall be glad to try to answer any additional points which may be made. I have attempted to deal with the three largest items, although not necessarily the most important. For example, the Subhead for the I.R.O. is one which concerns all sides of this Committee, but the sums with which I have dealt are the three largest, and for this reason I have made allusion to them. In the other cases I think that the various Subheads are probably covered by the Explanatory Memoranda.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. William Teeling: In the short time at our disposal, the right hon. Gentleman has covered much of what was possible on the present Supplementary Vote; but I would like to ask him just a few more questions on the subject of the increased allowances to different members of the Consular and Diplomatic Service and also on the question of rents. I hope that by mentioning my own travelling experiences, which are probably those of many other hon. Members, in the last few months, I shall not get ministers or consuls or anybody else into trouble. We kept our eyes open in travelling between the different legations and consulates and sometimes could not help seeing cases of considerable hardship. I would be inclined to say that, of all the Government Departments, perhaps the Foreign Office is the Cinderella with regard to the way its staff, and especially junior members abroad, have been looked after in recent years. It may well be that, through being abroad, these people develop a very great affection and patriotic loyalty for their country and, as a result, will not complain. In addition, they probably feel, erroneously perhaps, as a result of what they read in the newspapers about our present conditions, that things are far worse at home. The fact remains that they do suffer, and suffer considerably.
The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the visits of the inspectors which are now going on. I am alarmed to think that the result of their tour will not be known until probably the end of this year. What exactly is to happen to these people in the meantime? The right hon. Member referred to the fact that things are made up to them, but in the two or three recent years in which I have been wandering about I have noticed that it


has taken a long time for sums of money to be made up. These people have no capital of their own, and cannot always carry on.
In France, even before the change in the value of the franc, the official value in relation to the £ was certainly not such as could be got in the open market, or as regards prices of most living commodities, rents of houses and Hats and so on. For a time in France they were allowed to use certain official-priced hotels and hostels, but now, to avoid expense to the Treasury, that is cut down, and they have to go into flats and use the ordinary shops and restaurants. They have to do a certain amount of entertaining, and have to be with the people of the country in order that they should know what the French people are feeling. It is a long time before the money is made up and before these people get back on to the level they enjoyed before the franc began to go down. Many find themselves behind, but I believe it true that when the value of the franc goes down 20 per cent. the English grant will be increased to these people. I hope something will be done about this matter on these lines.
In other countries, for instance, South America, conditions are very often worse. In one embassy there was actually a strike of the staff because of appalling conditions in view of the pay they were receiving I wish to know what is being done in regard to medical assistance there, which is appallingly expensive. An hon. Member of this House told me that he fell ill on a recent visit to South America, and his hospital and doctor's bills amounted nearly to £1,000. How can an ordinary typist, or lower grade member of the staff, pay such sums? These things are often forgotten by the Foreign Office in London. Not only ought the inspectors to report on conditions, but something should be done about them immediately.
There is the question of consuls, who have frequently to entertain visitors. I know of one case where an ambassador has granted something to help the consuls entertaining people passing through, but the Foreign Office makes no payment for that. In Tokyo the majority of the embassy's staff are living in a large house five miles outside the town, on quite small pay, and are given practically no American dollars with which they could go about meeting American friends. Yet their job, outside office work, is mainly

to contact people and to do the usual embassy job. They are sent out from the different ministries to advance British interests and generally to do embassy work.
How can they do that, if they cannot meet the people? If it is said that they can meet them at the embassy, or the British hotel, it should be remembered that they would then have to entertain the guests they invite with food and drink and their salaries are not sufficient for them to do so. If they were enabled to go to the ordinary places where Americans go, and mix with them without entertaining them and had a few extra dollars to spend, I am certain they would bring back more in value and usefulness to this country than the actual expenditure in foreign currencies. In fact, I believe that if we sent out to these different embassies fewer people than those who are all receiving small salaries and pay, and if those fewer people were given higher pay, salaries and allowances, they would be in a better position to deliver the goods which we particularly want.
I turn to the Far Eastern Broadcasting Service. Can the right hon. Gentleman say a word or two about what is meant by that item. This service is working at Singapore and is likely to carry on for the next year or two. The sum asked for does not seem a very big one with which to run a full broadcasting service. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether a full-time service is given in that part of the Far East, or whether it is something which is more limited. It is important in South China, Siam, and other parts of that area that they should have an excellent service which is run by the Foreign Office, and not by the B.B.C. I would also like to know how far the service works in co-operation with the B.B C. and if the Foreign Office and the B.B.C. are working together with regard to the appointments of staff and officials who are engaged in broadcasting to those areas? There is, for example, the case of a recent appointment of a Siamese to broadcast to Siam from the B.B.C. in preference to a choice being made from a large number of British people whose names were put forward, one of whom, I understand, was quite strongly backed by the Foreign Office. Does that show that these two Departments are working together


in that very important work, and is it worth while paying this sum of money if we cannot get the two Departments to agree to work together?
Lastly, I turn to—
Advances on account of superannuation due to British subjects formerly employed in China.
That, to a minor extent, also refers to what the right hon. Gentleman said about the paying back of moneys in connection with people who were interned during the war. I believe that a sum of £120,000 as advances to the men who were working for the Shanghai Municipal Council is scarcely enough when it is realised what actually happened there. Well over 200 people were employed by the Shanghai Municipal Corporation, and our embassy and His Majesty's Government asked them to remain at their posts in 1939. They were told, practically directed to stay on, although they wanted to come back and join the United Kingdom Forces. They were all caught and interned in Shanghai when Japan invaded, and they spent the whole of the rest of the war in internment.
In 1943 we made a special treaty with China whereby all the Concessions, special privileges, the International Settlement, etc., were handed back to China, together with all the assets belonging to them, without a single thing being done to protect the interests of those wretched men then in prison, who had rights to superannuation, pension, pay, etc. Nothing was done except to say that it would be left to China to make these payments. It is because of that that the right hon. Gentleman is today asking for money in order to advance to these wretched people, who have nothing, bit by bit what they hope the Government will eventually receive back from the Chinese.
Some of them have by now, through being given this capital sum bit by bit, run out or are about to run out of funds. No work has been found for many of them in this country, although it was promised. The right hon. Gentleman ought to ask for the full sum required to pay them off entirely, which would be about £3,000,000. I know that the answer will be that we are at present in negotiation with the Chinese over this matter, and that if the course I have suggested were taken, the Chinese might say,

"Why should we worry any more about it?" The Chinese are losing face by not keeping to their promise to compensate these men. They are gradually showing that they will not meet a promise made during wartime. This money will have to be paid by the Chinese to the British Government, and the Government are quite capable, when a loan is being made, of seeing that something is taken back in respect of the sum they have advanced to these people. In the meantime, if we leave these wretched men, many of whom are at the end of their resources, they will be incapable of starting up again without a capital sum and they cannot wait indefinitely while the Government deals with China. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this matter and to see if it is not possible to grant these men the full sum due in advance, while the Government fights its own battle with the Chinese Government, and thus reward those people who did everything that was asked of them by the British Government during the war and suffered as a result.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. Follick: I agree with a great many things which have been said by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Teeling), and I should like to follow on the same lines. In the first place, I also have made one or two journeys abroad in the last 12 months, and especially in the Caribbean. I find there that a great many of the temporary diplomatic secretaries do not know whether they are going to be established or not, or whether they are only to remain there until younger people come along to take their places. Some of them are really first-class people doing first-class jobs, but they are very anxious about their future, because many of them are getting on in age and think they ought to know definitely whether they are to be established or not.
My second point is one which I was specially asked to bring forward, and it is the question of diplomats' widows' pensions. In certain circumstances, these pensions are granted, but, in other circumstances, the pension ceases with the death of the diplomat. That was all very well years ago, when a diplomatic career was a career for very wealthy people, but, today, a great many of our ministers and ambassadors are coming into the diplomatic career from the Consular Service


and they are not very well off. They are very worried about what may happen to their widows, after their deaths.
There is also the question of the shifting of currency. In certain parts of the Caribbean, currency has gone all hay-wire. I am speaking of what is happening in Venezuela, where the value of money is now quite out of proportion to what it used to be, so that the payment which our people get there is not sufficient to satisfy their needs. I was told that our Embassy in Caracas had great difficulty in keeping their local people working for it, because they received much higher wages outside, which made it very difficult for them to get any new staff at all. Even the regular people attached to the Embassy have great difficulty in making ends meet on the money which they are paid at present.
Then there is the case of the Consul-General in Curacao, who comes from an old consular family. I believe his father was Consul-General in the Canaries, and he tells me that he cannot go on in the way he has been doing because his money does not last out. He is not able to have any proper assistance in the consulate, so he has to do a lot of work himself which ought to be done by a junior assistant, with the result that through overwork his own job is not being done properly. He is not only the Consul in Curacao, but for Aruba and Dutch Guiana as well. He has three places to look after, without having the money to enable him to do so. He told me that unless something is done about it he would have to give the job up and go into ordinary commercial practice. Many of these people speak perfect Spanish—they speak Spanish as well as they speak English—and it would be a loss to us if many of them, for want of establishment or proper means, are lost to the Foreign Service or to the embassy. I ask the Minister to understand the difficulties caused by this lack of adequate means, and whether some extra provision could not be made so as to make life a little easier for these people and to guarantee their future.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: There were a number of points I wished to raise on these Supplementary Estimates, but

I am afraid that if I am to give the right hon. Gentleman reasonable time to reply I must restrict myself to two. The first question concerns Supplementary Estimates for medical attendance. I do not understand why this comes under the heading of Consular Establishments only. The Minister of State knows perfectly well that a very difficult situation is beginning to arise in certain countries behind the iron curtain in respect of medical attendance to those members of the Foreign Service who fall ill. A large number of doctors in these countries have been thrown out of their practices for non-adherence to the Communist point of view and those who are left, are becoming increasingly unwilling to go to the house of a British official, in the event of illness, for fear of being victimised for having contact with foreigners.
The situation is in any event, aggravated, in the first place, by the shortage of drugs and medical supplies in those countries, and, secondly, by the withdrawal of the Allied Control Commissions. So long as the Allied Control Commission operated, there was in nearly every case a medical officer to look after British Service personnel, who was equally prepared to attend the wives and children and the non-military personnel on the diplomatic staff. My own view is that the Government cannot escape the responsibility, in these circumstances, for making adequate provision for the members of the foreign service, and their families, in the event of illness. I believe that in the bigger missions, in those countries where the political atmosphere is thoroughly unfavourable, we ought seriously to consider whether or not a resident medical officer should be appointed with an adequate supply of medical drugs and stores imported through diplomatic channels. That is the first question I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State.
The only other point I have time to raise is about pay and allowances, to which reference has already been made. The Minister referred to the tour of inspection of ports overseas which is now taking place. What is the time lag between a decision that the rates of pay and allowances are to be increased in a particular case, and the date on which those new rates come into force? This has a particular bearing on the clerical grades, because the


smooth running of an embassy abroad depends just as much on a happy, contented, well-paid staff of cipher officers, typists, and so on, as it does on the experience capacity and political acumen of the head of the Mission. In no single instance is it more important than with the security officers and the security guards.
The Committee will be aware that before the war certain leakages occurred in certain British embassies abroad. In nearly every case those leakages were attributable to chancellory servants of foreign nationality who were bribed by the secret police of the countries concerned. The new system—and, in my view, the right one—is to appoint ex-Service men of good record to be responsible for the security of confidential documents. That system is by no means watertight, however, if the pay and allowances of those ex-Service men in charge of confidential documents are not sufficient to enable them to make both ends meet, and to have their wives and families with them. If their pay and allowances are insufficient they are subject to all the temptations to supplement their incomes from very undesirable sources, for very undesirable purposes from the security point of view. I should like the Minister of State to assure the Committee, when he is referring to the pay and allowances of these clerical grades, that he has not overlooked this aspect.
Those are the two main points I wish to make. In conclusion I can only say—and I am sure I shall have the Committee with me—that a healthy, well-paid, properly administered and contended Foreign Service is no less essential to the discharge of our world wide obligations as a great Power, than is the maintenance of strong and adequate Defence Forces.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. McNeil: I am most apologetic for being instrumental in cutting out anyone from the Debate, but I feel I have an obligation to reply to the points that have been made already. Some of them can be grouped quite easily together. The hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Teeling) pressed me very severely on the question of allowances, and I sympathise with the point which his colleague the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe) made in pointing to the lag which sometimes

occurs between the making of decisions and their implementation. Roughly, the position is that after the visit of the inspector charged with reviewing the level of allowances, the allowances are reviewed at six-monthly intervals; or, as the hon. Gentleman said, when there is an increase of 20 per cent. inside that period, then the revision would be automatic: the people concerned would not have to wait for the expiry of six months. I have myself encountered this difficulty about rents. It is perfectly true that in the assessment rents are included, but, where it is appropriate, a special allowance in certain areas is made for these.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Do I understand that if the rise in the cost of living is more than 20 per cent. the adjustment in the allowance is automatic?

Mr. McNeil: Yes, although I am not sure whether the phrase is "more than 20 per cent." I am rather inclined to think that the phrase is "when the variation reaches 20 per cent." We are talking of a difference of only one per cent. Then the revision is automatic. But even where there is no variation of 20 per cent. the allowance is reviewed at the end of each six months after the inspector has made his report.
The hon. Member for Windsor put another question to me about how long elapses between the visit of the inspector and the announcement of the award. I regret that I cannot give him a firm and precise answer. Naturally, I have been concerned about this, too, and I would say that it seems to work out at between three and four weeks from the inspector tabling his suggested scale to Treasury authority being given to that scale. Where there is any distinct lag, it has been made retrospective. I feel that the hon. Member may be quite accurate in saying that in certain clerical grades there have been unfortunate delays, because, of course, in the great efforts which we tried to make following the war we first tackled the grades in which the biggest anomalies appear; but, as I indicated earlier, we hope to have covered all grades and all posts during this current year. If hon. Members in any part of the Committee can help me, as they frequently have done, by drawing attention to particular anomalies, I shall be glad to look into them.
We have been most alert to the danger to which the hon. Member for Windsor properly drew my attention in regard to security guards. We have attempted to cover these guards as fast as inspectors have been available; but even where inspectors have not reached the posts to consider a guard, heads of missions have been instructed to make their recommendations about the scale of pay and allowances for security guards, because it makes nonsense of the whole business if an elaborate security system is employed, while the guards are paid so little that they are immediately tempted.
I choose one other point, to which both hon. Members referred, namely, the medical allowances. These medical allowances became operative in January, 1947, and the arrangement is that two-thirds of the costs are provided from public funds. This is provisional, and extends to the whole service, but it will have to be revised in some detail when the National Health Service scheme becomes operative. This does apply, and meets a point which has been made, because the savage and crippling costs for medical attention had to be carried previously by members of the service. A very important aspect—and I am obliged to hon. Members for raising it—is the question of medical services in countries in Eastern Europe. We have done a good deal. In Moscow, we are quite well provided for, in conjunction with the other Commonwealth stations; in Poland, we have an Anglo-American project; in Yugoslavia, we are discussing the employment of doctors the whole time; and while the position is not satisfactory in either Roumania or Bulgaria, we have made some provision in regard to drugs, but I assure hon. Members that we are pursuing that point.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,310,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948, for the expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions and Consular Establishments Abroad; certain special grants and payments, including grants in aid; and sundry other services.

Orders of the Day — CLASS II

UNITED NATIONS

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £74,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray

the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948, for a contribution towards the expenses of the United Nations.

INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ORGANISATION

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,240,625, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948, for a contribution towards the expenses of the International Refugee Organisation.

ASSISTANCE TO GREECE

Resolved:
That a sum, not exceeding £2,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948, for a contribution to the cost of the Greek Armed Forces.

It being half-past Nine o'clock, the Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14, forthwith to put severally the Questions.

"That the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in such Estimates for the Navy and Army Services for the coming financial year as have been put down on at least one previous day for consideration on an allotted day, and the total amounts of all outstanding Estimates supplementary to those of the current financial year as have been presented seven clear days, and of all oustanding Excess Votes, be granted for the Services defined in those Estimates, Supplementary Estimates, and Statements of Excess."

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1948–49

"That a sum, not exceeding £74,476,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services, namely:




£


1.
Pay, etc., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines
33,738,000


2.
Victualling and Clothing for the Navy
9,663,000


4.
Civilians employed on Fleet Services
4,357,000


10.
Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad
7,638,000


11.
Miscellaneous Effective Services
5,057,000


13.
Non-effective Services
14,023,000




£74,476,000"

Question put, and agreed to.

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1948–49

"That a sum, not exceeding £159,774,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services, namely:




£


1.
Pay, etc., of the Army
96,443,000


2.
Reserve Forces (to a number not exceeding 54,000, all ranks, for the Royal Army Reserve and 11,000, all ranks, for the Supplementary Reserve), Territorial Army (to a number not exceeding 133,000, all ranks) and Cadet Forces
8,042,000


8.
Works, Buildings and Lands
30,537,000


9.
Miscellaneous Effective Services
11,023,000


10.
Non-effective Services
13,729,000




£159,774,000"

Question put, and agreed to.

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1947–48.

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £78,462,478, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948, for expenditure in respect of the following Supplementary Estimates, namely.


CIVIL ESTIMATES


CLASS I




£


2.
House of Commons
6,000


4.
Treasury and Subordinate Departments
10


9.
Civil Service Commission
85,780


15.
National Debt Office
10


26.
Scottish Home Department
200

CLASS II


6.
Commonwealth Services
10


8.
Colonial Office
13,000


9.
Colonial and Middle Eastern Services
1,125,552


10.
West African Produce Control Board
13,875,000

CLASS III


1.
Home Office
10


6.
Supreme Court of Judicature, etc.
10


15.
Scottish Land Court
1,025


16.
Law Charges and Courts of Law, Scotland
10


17.
Register House, Edinburgh
10

Class IV


8.
National Portrait Gallery
150


10.
Scientific Investigation, etc.
89,000


13.
Public Education, Scotland
10

CLASS V




£


1.
Ministry of Health
8,750,000


7.
Assistance Board
475,000


11A
Central Land Board
54,200

CLASS VI


1.
Board of Trade
10


8.
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
10


16.
Ministry of Civil Aviation
7,345,850


19
State Management Districts
10

CLASS VII


7.
Public Buildings Overseas
55,770


12.
Stationery and Printing
515,500

Class VIII


4.
Superannuation and Retired Allowances
550,000

CLASS X


4.
Ministry of Transport (War Services)
40,000,000


7.
Foreign Office (German Section)
10


8
United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration
2,581,331


10.
War Damage Commission
48,000

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS


1.
Customs and Excise
281,000


2.
Inland Revenue
1,610,000


3.
Post Office
1,000,000




£78,462,478"

Question put, and agreed to.

NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1947–48.

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Navy Services for the year.

Schedule.



Sums not exceeding.



Supply Grants.
Appropriations in Aid.


Vote.
£
£


1. Wages, &amp;c, of Officers and Men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines and Women's Royal Naval Service
10
—

Question put, and agreed to.

ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1947–48.


"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £15,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to detray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Army Services for the year."


Schedule.





Sums not exceeding.





Supply Grants.
Appropriations in Aid.


Vote


£
£


1.
Pay, &amp;c, of the Army
…

39,727,000
*-
19,500,000


2.
Reserve Forces, Territorial Army and Cadet Forces
…
Cr.
909,000

—


4.
Civilians
…
Cr.
4,093,000

1,930,000


5.
Movements
…
Cr.
7,800,000

—


6.
Supplies, &amp;c.
…
Cr.
1,650,000

1,750,000


7.
Stores
…
Cr.
11,400,000
*-
10,500,000


8.
Works, Buildings and Lands
…
Cr.
12,700,000

1,285,000


9.
Miscellaneous Effective Services
…

14,661,000
*-
8,493,000


10.
Non-effective Services
…
Cr.
836,000

—



Total, Army (Supplementary) 1947–48
…£

15,000,000
*-
33,528,000


* Deficit

Question put, and agreed to.

CIVIL (EXCESSES), 1946–47.


"That a sum, not exceeding £11,422 19s. 5d., be granted to His Majesty, to make good excesses on certain grants for Civil Services for the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1947."


Schedule.


Class and Vote
Excess of Expenditure over Estimate.
Appropriations in Aid.
Excess Votes.





£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


Class II.











5.
United Nations
…
10,094
5
2
—
10,094
5
2


Class VI.











5.
Export Credits (Special Guarantees)
…
93
10
2
83
10
2
10
0
0


Class VIII.











4.
Superannuation and Retired Allowances
…
5,573
4
3
4,254
10
0
1,318
14
3





Total Civil (Excesses)
…
£11,422
19
5

Question put, and agreed to.

NAVY (EXCESS), 1946–47.


"That a sum, not exceeding £7,655,466 2s., be granted to His Majesty, to make good an excess on the grants for Navy Services for the year ended on the 31st day of March 1947."


Schedule.




DEFICITS.
SURPLUSES.


Navy Services, 1946–47 Votes.
Excesses of actual over estimated gross Expenditure.
Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.
Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditure.
Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.




£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


1.
Wages, &amp;c, of Officers, Seamen, Boys and Royal Marines, and Women's Royal Naval Service
8,583,947
4
9
—
—
2,040,391
11
11


2.
Victualling and Clothing for the Navy
504,606
5
7
—
—
1,400,257
13
1


3.
Medical Establishments and Services
351,543
16
0
—
—
43,243
19
9


4.
Civilians Employed on Fleet Services
1,689,131
10
11
759
0
2
—
—


5
Educational Services
—
—
28,173
13
3
21,624
1
4


6.
Scientific Services
—
40,803
15
5
334,782
12
9
—


7.
Royal Naval Reserves
—
100
0
0
123,400
0
10
—


8.
Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &amp;c.—















Section I.—Personnel
—
241,452
6
6
111,829
12
9
—



Section II.—Matériel
1,778,867
8
2
—
—
2,341,650
2
1



Section III.—Contract Work
3,403,903
15
2
—
—
1,258,152
4
3


9.
Naval Armaments
271,169
10
7
—
—
1,360,466
16
6


10
Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad
—
38,496
3
10
296,826
19
5
—


11.
Miscellaneous Effective Services
1,374,421
13
5
—
—
1,449,696
14
0


12.
Admiralty Office
—
4,433
1
10
90,953
2
2
—


13.
Non-effective Services (Naval and Marine)—Officers
—
—
59,895
16
3
26,070
19
7


14.
Non-effective Services (Naval and Marine)—Men
135,883
11
10
—
—
105
15
0


15.
Civil Superannuation, Allowances and Gratuities
11,031
16
3
—
—
1,435
9
1


16.
Merchant Shipbuilding, &amp;c.
—
—
202,187
13
8
65,379
9
2


17.
Balances Irrecoverable and Claims Abandoned
481,439
8
5
—
—
—




18,585,946
1
1
326,044
7
9
1,248,049
11
1
10,008,474
15
9



Excess Vote
—
—
7,655,466
2
0
—




18,585,946
1
1
326,044
7
9
8,903,515
13
1
10,008,474
15
9




£18,911,990 8 10
£18,911,990 8 10

Question put, and agreed to.

Air (EXCESS), 1946–47.

"That a sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to make good an excess on the grants for Air Services for the year ended on the 31st day of March 1947."

Schedule.




DEFICITS.
SURPLUSES.


Air Services, 1946–47 Votes.
Excesses of actual over estimated gross Expenditure.
Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.
Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditure.
Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.




£
5.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


1.
Pay, &amp;c, of the Air Force
13,492,958
17
8
16,119
15
6
—
—


2.
Quartering, Non-Technical Supplies and Transportation
2,409,013
11
3
345,642
9
1
—
—


3.
Technical Supplies and Services
—
—
6,684,196
6
9
12,243,237
7
10


4.
Works, Buildings and Lands
2,308,750
3
3
—
—
1,113,138
7
0


5.
Medical Services
83,657
12
5
—
—
6,973
15
2


6.
Educational Services
—
19,248
17
2
358,787
9
11
—


7.
Reserve and Auxiliary Forces
—
72
0
7
240,393
10
7
—


9
Meteorological and Miscellaneous Effective Services
—
—
465,365
3
3
3,367
5
4


10.
Air Ministry
112,208
11
11
10,820
15
2
—
—


11.
Half-Pay, Pensions and other Non-effective Services
67,032
10
1
—
—
2,137
18
7



Balances Irrecoverable and Claims Abandoned
170,539
9
4
—
—
—




18,644,160
15
11
391,903
17
6
7,748,742
10
6
13,368,854
13
11



Excess Vote
—
—
10
0
0
—




18,644,160
15
11
391,903
17
6
7,748,752
10
6
13,368,854
13
11




£19,036,064 13 5
£21,117,607 4 5




NET SURPLUS
 £2,081,542 11 0

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Resolved:
That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1947, the sum of £7,666,899 1s. 5d. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Resolved:
That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948, the sum of £245,197,121 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Resolved:
That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 2949, the sum of £1,058,174,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — CLERGY PENSIONS MEASURE

9.36 p.m.

Mr. Burden: I beg to move,
That the Clergy Pensions Measure, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to His Majesty for his Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
This Measure comes to us with the full approval of the Church Assembly. Circulated with the Measure is a report dealing in detail with each of the Clauses. Therefore, at this hour, I feel that it is unnecessary for me to go over the Clauses one by one. The Measure has been considered by the Ecclesiastical Committee whose report is before the House. It reads as follows:
In so far as the Measure consolidates existing enactments, the Ecclesiastical Committee welcome it as reproducing the law in a more convenient and accessible form. In so far as it amends the law, they consider that it will improve the arrangements now in force for providing the clergy with pensions. They do not consider that the Measure affects prejudicially the constitutional rights of any of His Majesty's subjects, and they are of opinion that it should be allowed to proceed.
I submit that the Measure is not controversial, and it only remains for me to say that when it is passed by this House, and on receiving the approval of Parliament and the Royal Assent, a full explanatory memorandum will be sent to all clergymen affected by it.

9.39 P.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Boles: I beg to second the Motion.
This is a Measure which is badly needed and has been thoroughly thrashed out by the Church Assembly, the Legislative Committee and the Ecclesiastical Committee of this House, and is approved, I think, from all points of view. It fills a want which has been felt for a long time amongst the clergy, in that a new pensions scheme has been arranged for the clergy ordained since 1st January, 1948. It also makes an allowance for the continuance of some of the old clergy pensions in respect of those who were ordained before 1927, which was a want very much felt. This Measure will give the clergy an adequate pension under the new scheme.

Lieut.-Colonel Kingsmill: As a great grandson of an Archbishop of Canterbury who, in his time, had the

honour of crowning Queen Victoria and of officiating at her marriage, I whole-heartedly support this scheme, and I hope it will have the unanimous approval of this House.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — EX-INSPECTOR SYME (WIDOW)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. Adams.]

9.41 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: In raising tonight this subject of the widow of ex-Inspector Syme, I am recalling a very long story, great agitation and a great struggle by this man in defence of what he considered to be his rights, and at the same time, I must gay, a long story of official ineptitude and prejudice. The story as it unfolded itself would be impossible in these days, particularly when one bears in mind the fact that the final act of suspension and dismissal of Syme was definitely and directly due to the fact that he proposed to appeal to his Member of Parliament in regard to this case. In these more democratic and enlightened days in this country, that could not possibly happen, as we know it has been established that all those with grievances, including members of His Majesty's Forces, are at all times able to bring those grievances to the notice of their Member of Parliament. But that is what happened in the Syme case, and that was the reason for his final dismissal.
I have not the time nor the desire to review this whole case. It would involve a great deal of time, and bring in a long succession of Ministers, including Home Secretaries, among whom would be the Home Secretary of 1910, now the Leader of the Opposition. A great number of people in high places were involved, and in general I am bound to say, after having reviewed the case again recently, that it seems to do them little credit. I would be content to leave this story in the limbo of forgotten things, but today there is in Newcastle-on-Tyne an old lady who is nearly 79 years of age, who is ill and destitute. It is for that reason that I cannot possibly allow this state of affairs to go by without bringing it to the attention of this House.
On 12th February I asked the Home Secretary:
whether he will consider the grant of some more generous ex gratia payment to the widow of ex-Inspector Syme, in addition to the nominal sum of £100 which was paid to her on Mr. Syme's death.
The reply of the Home Secretary to this was:
The grant to Mr. Syme was an exceptional ex gratia payment, and I do not know of any new circumstances which would justify reconsideration of the matter.
As a supplementary question, I then asked:
Is my right hon. Friend aware that Mrs. Syme is now nearly 79 years of age, ill and I understand in straitened circumstances? Is he not aware that many of us feel that justice was never done in this case.
The Home Secretary answered:
This case received very favourable consideration from one of my predecessors, and I cannot review it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1948; Vol. 447, c. 556.]

Mr. Stokes: Did he say which?

Mr. Chamberlain: He did not say which. I now say to the Under-Secretary of State that in the facts which I have brought to the attention of the House are the new circumstances for which the Home Secretary asked, if there was to be reconsideration of this matter. The Under-Secretary of State should not hide behind any decision of his predecessors in this matter. It might be said that there are thousands of old ladies in straitened circumstances who are ill and dependent upon a meagre pension, but there are not thousands, or hundreds, or scores of old ladies who have suffered as this one has, for nearly 40 years. She has had the anguish of seeing her husband degraded, dismissed and victimised by overbearing officialdom. She saw him sent to Broad-moor, wrongfully, in the view of many of us, and unjustly. She saw him finish his days fighting vainly against officialdom for the justice which he never received.
I appreciate that the Home Secretary could take his stand on the legalistic point and on the absence of any legal obligation to do anything in the matter. On the contrary, he could take the human view and he could bear in mind the suffering which has been borne through all these years both by Syme, and by his widow, and of the fact that upon Syme's death a mere £100 ex gratia payment was

awarded to her. The Home Secretary could point to the findings of the 1924 Commission and to the pension of £72 which was latterly awarded to Syme. On the other hand, he could decide to help this old lady for a short time only, in the nature of things. He could give her bodily help in the way of more generous treatment than was made to her upon her husband's death and he could give her mental relief by placing on record what all of us who have studied the case are confident is the fact, that if Syme was unwise in some of his actions and rather rash in his attitude at times, he was more sinned against than sinning.
In my view, the 1924 report proves that Syme was the victim of bullying, bumble-dom and bias. Of all the many reports I have studied, I have never known one in which the conclusions reached were more at variance with the evidence. After heaping criticism after criticism upon the officials and others who were connected with the case, the report finishes astonishingly by saying:
In our opinion the awards of 20th December, 1909, and 29th January, 1910, were rightly made.
Those were the judgments which fell upon Syme—reprimand, caution, transfer to another station, reduction in rank and final dismissal. The report further added, about ex-Inspector Syme:
Wrong was not done to him.
In the view of those who have carefully studied the report that is a most astonishing verdict in view of the evidence which is set forth in detail in the pages of that report. I could refer to a large number of points in that report. I am not going to do so, but I will refer to one or two. For instance, in the body of the report there is reference to the report of Chief Inspector Sherrington, the report which led to Syme's removal to another station. On that the Commission said that:
… the report was quite unreasonable.
A little later on it states in regard to Syme's action in defending the constables, which was the beginning of all this trouble, that it was perfectly correct. It makes that clear on page 6. Here is another thing which I took from this astonishing report. Superintendent Isaacs was requested by the Assistant Commissioner to examine certain witnesses whose names had been put up by Mr. Syme. This Superintendent Isaacs did without Mr. Syme being


present, and in the 1924 report the Commissioners say that:
The procedure adopted was, in our opinion, exceedingly unsatisfactory.
A little later it says that this procedure was:
… contrary to the plainest principles of justice.
As a result of that report by Superintendent Isaacs, Syme was suspended. In regard to the whole matter of Syme's transfer and suspension, the Commission says—I quote from the body of the 1924 report:
There was much in the proceedings connected with his transfer and with his suspension to which Mr. Syme could justly take exception.
Right through the pages of this astonishing report—the Talbot report of 1924—there is case after case of misjudgment on the part of superior officers, of the wrong kind of action taken and of oppressive and unjust action. I have quoted some and I could give the Under-Secretary many more references in that report. The astonishing thing is that at the end the report gives as its findings that:
The awards made were correct "—
and—
wrong was not done to him
In my opinion, and I say it quite bluntly and frankly, that was an absolute travesty of justice. Syme appealed to the Home Secretary, in 1910, after his dismissal. The Home Secretary, who was the present Leader of the Opposition, wrote a critical minute on the handling of the case. This was read at the Talbot Commission in 1924, but strangely enough there was no reference to it in their report. It is, however, interesting to note that there was this most critical minute on the handling of the case. I would also add that the Home Secretary of that day offered at that time, just after the dismissal in April, 1910, to reinstate Mr. Syme as a station sergeant. Syme refused that. He could have accepted that and the matter could have been in a certain way smoothed over, but I think it shows the strong and dogged nature of the man that he refused to accept reinstatement at a lower grade. He considered that his right was to be reinstated as an inspector, and that shows very clearly the nature of the man—sometimes strong-headed, but

certainly with a very strong sense of grievance and also, I think, a very strong sense of what is justice and injustice.
After the 1924 report, Syme approached the Home Secretary of the day, Mr. Arthur Henderson, for redress, but he got no reply to his request, in the light, I suppose, of the findings of that report. A little later, in 1931 it is to the credit of the second Labour Government that they gave him a small pension although it was, strangely enough, a medical pension and, as far as I can understand, it was virtually an infringement of the statute that a man who had never been ill in his life and certainly had not been dismissed or got rid of because of ill-health should be awarded a medical pension. He was, at last, given a small pension, but no provision was made for his wife. The only provision eventually made for Mrs. Syme was the ex gratia payment of £100 on the death of Mr. Syme some years later. So he died, leaving behind him this sorry story which, in my view, was a travesty of justice, and also leaving behind him a widow who is now bowed with poverty, grief and illness.
I think that, in these circumstances, we have a right to look to the Home Secretary to do something of a reasonably generous nature. Here is this old lady, here is the story of the suffering of her husband, the story of her own sufferings, not only bodily but mentally, which have gone on for nearly 40 years. I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary to make a gesture which will ease her bodily pain and discomfort, and, indeed, the penury in which she now finds herself, and I am also asking that he will make some kind of declaration to show that, if Syme was in many ways unwise, wilful and strong-headed, he was, in his day, greatly sinned against. If some such gesture and move were made by the Home Secretary, I think it would be very much in keeping with what we in this country, particularly nowadays, pride ourselves upon; that is, that in this country there still breathes the spirit of freedom, of justice and of humanity. In that way, I put forward to the under Secretary my strong appeal for this old lady.

9.57 P.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I had a long association with Inspector John Syme. I remember him away back in the


years before the first world war—tall, fine, handsome he was, and a clean man, very gentle in his manner, very clean in his character. During the years in which I saw him, the pressure of injustice wore down that strong body and practically destroyed the mind and soul of that fine man. There was no question that there was an injustice, or that, injustice having been done, and having been endorsed by the Home Secretary operating at the time, it became impossible to get any succeeding Home Secretary to reverse that decision and do justice to Inspector John Syme. The House should make no mistake at all about it. Everybody understood that a gross injustice had been done. An inspector was deliberately victimised because he was concerned for the welfare of the policemen serving under him. In the years following the first world war, his case was taken up by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean), and he made a fight of it year after year. He kept on pressing this case again and again, and it was because of his action, and the actions of a few of his friends, that this committee was appointed in 1924. Always, whatever committee was appointed or however the matter—

It being Ten o'Clock the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. Adams.]

Mr. Gallacher: —however the matter was discussed, there was always the reluctance to make a decision that would reflect upon the Home Secretary who had been responsible at the time and the high officials associated with the case. That was the big difficulty. And so the fight went on, led by the hon. Member for Govan until 1929 when, during the time of the Labour Government, the feeling had become so terrific that, by 1931, something had to be done. Not only was a pension made to John Syme, but he was given a lump sum payment. Members should take note of two points. If John Syme had been treated justly, if he deserved dismissal from the Police Force, he would never have been offered reinstatement. The offer of reinstatement was in itself an admission that injustice had been done to this man and that he was a fit person to wear uniform and represent the police.
In 1931, because feeling was so strong, the lump sum payment and pension were given and the Government "made a twist," as the hon. Member for Norwood has said. Through a breach of the regulations or the law, a small pension was provided for Syme. I would like to know why it was, if there had not been an injustice, that the Home Secretary in 1931, after consulting all the legal advisers, which I am quite certain the Home Secretary responsible in the first instance had done, agreed to make this payment to Syme and to give him this illegal pension. Syme was persuaded to sign a paper. After signing it, he found that he had been taken advantage of, that his character and name were not going to be cleared, and that the pension which should have gone with his position of inspector was being denied to him. Because of these events he started campaigning again. I had much association with him and I know what he suffered and how his health was dragged down. I know only too well what his wife and the mother of his family had to suffer also.
I would like hon. Members to try to picture for a moment what happened and visualise John Syme going to the Home Office, coming to Parliament, making a disturbance, being thrown into gaol, going on hunger strike and being liberated after a short time, then back into gaol and on to a hunger strike again. Let us think of the sufferings of that wife and mother at home while John Syme was trying to do these things, perhaps in the wrong way. In later years he was not allowed in the precincts of this House, but I often talked to him outside, when he was accompanied most of the time by a very kind and good hearted C.I.D. man, in whom John Syme recognised a great friend in his latter days when he was in bad condition. I would like to impress upon the Under-Secretary and his right hon. Friend that it will be difficult to find anywhere such a long period of suffering which, over 40 years, became more intense as each year went by. It will be difficult to find anywhere a woman who had to endure such a long period of agony and almost impossible pain, as a result of the palpable injustice which had been done to her husband.
I know the Under-Secretary will tell me that everything has been tried, and all has been done, but nothing can alter


the fact that an injustice was done to Inspector John Syme nearly 40 years ago, and as a result of that injustice, whatever may have been offered or given to him in 1931, this woman spent a lifetime of almost unbearable suffering, she was loyal all the time to her husband and endured terrible privations, hardships and suffering. Now she is 79 years of age, in ill health, and cannot have so many years to live. Surely the least the Government could do, and the Home Office representing the Government, is to make a kindly gesture to this old woman. That would not cost the country much in money, but I am certain it would reflect very great credit on the Home Office, even at this late hour, if they made the gesture for which the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Chamberlain) has appealed. I wish to join in this appeal with all my heart on behalf of this woman who has suffered so much through an injustice done to her husband.

10.7 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): The case which has been raised tonight is a very tragic one, and one which, from origins which might have been small and trivial, has grown to great dimensions. It has attracted sympathy for nearly 40 years and, as one may judge from what my hon. Friends have said, still attracts considerable sympathy today. One thing is quite certain—we cannot deal with this case on a legal basis. That is not only because of findings which have been made by various inquiring bodies in the past, but also because in so far as any question of payment pursuant to legal obligations is concerned, I think the law was stretched to its full length, and perhaps even a little beyond it, in the payment made in 1931.
I do not propose to argue this case at all on the question of legal claims for compensation. I do not think that is the issue. Nor do I want to reopen the facts of the original disciplinary action taken, or of the original grievance. I do not want at this very late date to revive unnecessarily, old controversies, particularly because what we have to deal with is not payment to ex-Inspector Syme. After all, so long as it was the case of Mr. Syme, it was possible to argue whether or not he was at fault, and so on. We

are now dealing with his widow, and there can be no question that she was in no way at fault. Yet she suffered from the events which flowed from this unhappy incident in 1909.
I did not intend to recapitulate this case, but, as I cannot quite accept all the implications of the case as given by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Chamberlain) and the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), I must spend a moment in stating briefly what happened. The original incident was in 1909, and resulted in the inspector being ordered to be transferred from one station to another. I think it is now agreed, and it was so found by the very responsible judicial body which was appointed to inquire into this case in 1924, that the handling of the disciplinary case at that stage was very injudicious and very unfortunate and left a sense of grievance which gave rise to the whole of the rest of the case. As a result of Inspector Syme's reactions to those orders, and as a result of his sense of grievance, he made certain other allegations which led to further disciplinary proceedings, and he was dismissed early in 19ro. From that time until his death in February, 1945, he never ceased to agitate and to claim, a claim in which he had the support of many people, including many of his colleagues, that he had been wronged.
I can skip the intervening years between 1910 and the inquiry of 1924. All I will say is that in the course of his agitation Inspector Syme got himself into a good deal of trouble and was several times in prison. In 1924 a High Court judge, a county court judge, and a King's Counsel, Mr. Rayner Goddard, who is now the Lord Chief Justice, were appointed to inquire into the case, and the report they made is the one to which my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Chamberlain) has referred in somewhat disparaging terms. I think that perhaps he slightly misreads the conclusions. I will not go into the evidence, but I must say that I think it is only reasonable that successive Home Secretaries, having appointed a body of that standing, with absolutely no interest in the matter, consisting of persons of high judicial training and knowledge, should have stood, as a matter of law, upon the findings of that tribunal.

Mr. Chamberlain: Will my hon. Friend, in the course of his remarks, make clear in what way I misinterpreted the findings?

Mr. Younger: When my hon. Friend said that the evidence, to some of which he subsequently referred, was in conflict with the conclusions, he was suggesting that having cast certain aspersions on the other police officers involved, superiors of Inspector Syme, it was then inconsistent, if I understood my hon. Friend aright, to conclude that no wrong was done. I admit it is a rather fine point, but if I may interpret the conclusion as I read it, it is that while certain reports were made which should not have been made, while there was injudicious handling of the case, while the original case against the inspector which gave rise to all the trouble was an unfounded complaint, nevertheless as a result of subsequent events and the subsequent allegations made by the inspector, and never substantiated, it was right and indeed inevitable that in the subsequent disciplinary proceedings the action should have been taken which was taken. That is rather a subtle distinction in a way. It is saying that while the original complaint was false, nevertheless subsequent actions by the inspector rendered it inevitable that at later disciplinary proceedings in 1910 he should have been punished as he was punished.
It should also be borne in mind that the tribunal did not really sit as a court of morals. What it was deciding was whether there was any legal claim for compensation, and it was that to which it referred in its conclusions. It was not called upon to decide precisely the moral implications of everything done either by the inspector or by his superior officers, or by the Assistant Commissioner of Police. It had to decide whether or not there was such a wrong, in the legal sense, done to the man as would give rise to a claim for compensation. I am making it clear that I am not dealing with the case now on the basis of legal claim for compensation, or putting up any legal difficulties, but it is only fair, in view of the comments which the hon. Member for Norwood saw fit to make upon the evidence of this very distinguished and impartial tribunal, that I should try to make clear what I believe to have been the reason for their deciding as they did.

Mr. Chamberlain: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, may I put this to him? He has said that this was a matter with regard to liability to compensation. While I quite agree that in the first part of the conclusions the finding is:
In our opinion it is impossible to say that by this wrong was done to Mr. Syme for which he could claim compensation.
If my hon. Friend will look a little lower down, he will see that the finding is:
We, therefore, having examined the circumstances connected with the dismissal of Mr. Syme from the Police Force, report to your Lordships that wrong was not done to him.
That is what I wanted to bring to the attention of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Younger: As I say, I take all this to he legal language, and when they said "wrong," no judgment of morals was being made, only that no wrong for which he could make a claim, no wrong in law, had been done to him. That in any case was the finding in 1924. In 1931 the matter was taken up again, further inquiries were made by the then Home Secretary and some of his colleagues, and eventually the decision was taken to pay him a pension. That pension was paid on the basis on which it would have been paid had he retired at the date when he was actually dismissed, had he retired at that date in the rank of inspector and on the grounds of ill health. From that time onwards the pension appropriate to that rank, together with pensions increases in conformity with the Pensions (Increase) Acts, were paid to him till his death, and the arrears of pension between 1910 and 1931 were also paid to him in a lump sum.
When that was announced in the House of Commons on 21st May, 1931, the then Home Secretary, Mr. Clynes, made one or two remarks which I should quote in view of what has been said by my hon. Friend. He said, firstly, as regards Mr. Syme:
There has never been any question as to Mr. Syme's sincerity. It is acknowledged that while in the Police Service he discharged his duties in a conscientious manner, and no stigma of any kind attaches in this settlement to him.
And then he added:
It must not be thought that this settlement involves any reflection upon those who in the course of years have been concerned in


the handling of the case."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 21st May, 1931; Vol. 252, c. 2175.]
I think it is right that that should go on record now in view of the very strong words used by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood when he talked about the action having done little credit to those in high places, and about official ineptitude, prejudice and so on.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask a question on this, because this is a matter which has been before the House for a very long time? If it was thought right to grant the ex-Inspector a pension, was no provision of any kind then forthcoming for the widow?

Mr. Younger: I was coming to that. It is a rather curious thing, perhaps, that no provision appears even to have been mentioned, let alone decided upon at that time, but I think the basis of it would probably be this: that he was granted the pension to which he would have been entitled had he retired on the date on which he was dismissed, and at that time there was no provision for pensions for widows of police officers. Therefore, on that basis, there would be no provision made, and I think that is probably the reason for it.
It only remains to state that, after this payment had been made, Inspector Syme's agitation continued. He died in 1945 and, upon an application from members of the family, the then Home Secretary decided to make a payment from non-official funds—an ex gratia payment—of £100 to the widow. As I say, there was no pensions scheme for widows upon which she could have legal claim and there was no power in the Home Secretary to pay a regular pension under any legal provision at all. He was only able to make an ex gratia payment out of funds which are at his disposal for purposes.
I think what I have said makes it clear that ever since 1931, at least, this case has been dealt with by the Home Office not upon a legal basis at all, but simply on the basis of the recognition of the tragic results of injudicious handling of a disciplinary case many years before; recognition of the suffering which was caused and recognition, also, of the great public sympathy which was felt for Syme, both by many Members of this House and

also by his own colleagues in the Police Force. Now, we must feel a special sympathy for the widow who had certainly no responsibility in any errors which her husband may have committed but who, nevertheless, bore the consequences equally with him. She stood by her husband throughout all the years when he was in and out of prison, and I am informed that she has been uniformly helpful to everybody throughout the case whether, if I may so describe it, they appeared to be on the side of her husband or whether they did not, and everybody has the highest praise for the way she has behaved throughout this long and trying period.
In view of the judicial report of 1924, I think it would have been difficult for any Home Secretary to deal much more generously with this case than the Home Secretary did in 1931, because, after all, if a case falls outside any legal provision for payment of money, the Home Secretary has to be exceedingly careful in the way he administers funds which may be in his complete discretion; they are public funds and they are not meant to be readily or easily dispersed. In particular, I think one should say it would not be right for a Home Secretary to try to circumvent the provisions which have been made by Parliament, for instance, in respect of the rate for regular pensions, if he were to use funds to increase the rate decided by Parliament, except in special circumstances.
It was, therefore, felt in 1945 that the ex gratia payment was a highly exceptional payment and it was felt that after the lapse, then, of some 35 years the case was closed. I do not want to appear in any way unsympathetic, but I think I should say that, although no contributory pension was payable to police widows throughout most of the period to which I have referred, Mrs. Syme is, of course, in precisely the same position as persons of her age who are widows of police officers retiring before 1918. As we all know—we discussed it only about a fortnight ago in this House on the Police Pensions Bill—there was no provision then and, therefore, she is in the same position as the widows of a number—now I think a small number—of police officers who left the Force before 1918. She has at her age such assistance as she can get through the non-contributory pension to


which she is now entitled—[Interruption]—at the age of 70.
Since 1945, no further information has reached my right hon. Friend about the circumstances of Mrs. Syme and, having already made the one exceptional ex gratia payment, I think the House will realise that my right hon. Friend can hardly be expected to make any commitment here tonight in respect of any further ex gratia payment on no evidence and no information at all. In the absence of any information as to the circumstances which would distinguish this lady's condition from that of all the other police widows to whom I have referred, who, unfortunately, also get no pension, I think it would be wrong for me to give any commitment on his behalf tonight.
I am sorry there is nothing further I can say on that. I hope I have put the matter in perspective. I hope that I have shown that, whatever the arguments may be about the original rights and wrongs of this case, there is no reflection whatever on the late Inspector Syme, that there is a recognition of the great suffering of his wife while he was alive, that sympathy has been shown since 1931, and that exceptional payments have been made in this altogether exceptional case. That is all that I am in a position to say tonight.

Mr. Chamberlain: While expressing appreciation of the kind way in which my hon. Friend has spoken, may I ask him if, in the event of my putting before the Home Secretary detailed information as to the present condition of Mrs. Syme, these and

all other relevant facts will be sympathetically considered?

Mr. Younger: Of course, I will undertake to put any information which is supplied before my right hon. Friend, and he will certainly consider it.

Mr. Stokes: Before my hon. Friend finally resumes his seat, would he enlighten the House a little more by telling us how many widows there are in this category? He says there are several whose husbands died before provision was made for pensions to the widows of policemen. Is the number a large number?

Mr. Younger: I am afraid that without notice I could not say what the number is tonight. It was recognised during the discussion on the Police Pensions Bill that this number is very small. It is hoped to do something in new regulations for them. But I am afraid—I do not want to mislead the House in any way—that what could be done would probably bring those getting nothing, up to the level of what they would have got had their husbands been insured. Because this particular widow is already over 70, and is already, on my information, receiving the normal 26s., it is very doubtful, to say the least of it, whether any new regulations could, in fact, improve for her the position she is now in.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes past Ten o'Clock.